X PRIZE Foundation
Login / Register
Automotive X PRIZEArchon X PRIZE for GenomicsSpace
Spanish
Russian
French
German
Chinese
Korean
Japanese
Portugese
Italian

It can be done for less than the PRIZE money


<< previous      |      >>

The GLXP and it seems many who follow it can be divided into two camps regarding funding:

Camp A seems to think that the PRIZE money cannot be won by spending any less than some significant multiple of the PRIZE money to win it.

Camp B thinks that it won't cost anywhere near the PRIZE money, and therefore should be possible to be done on the cheap, out of one's garage, so to speak.

And then there are those of us who, well, may be a bit "maverick" about it...

We have run the numbers. Without inventing anything, LunaTrex will integrate space-proven technologies together, in a small but effective package, that will win the prize by 2012, maybe even 2011 if we can raise the needed funds sooner.

How?

Okay, first you have to look at the weight. I have set a weight limit on the mission of 200 kg. This is very possible, using our electric propulsion technique. It will take months to get to the Moon, but it will save a lot of weight. Additionally, we are researching techniques to minimize landing fuel, possibly designing a "hard landing" system which again, saves weight.

Secondly, you have to look at the expensive components, and find ways to minimize the costs. We will use only proven space technology, but we will try to get this technology at bargain basement prices, in exchange for partial sponsorship, hopefully paying less for each item, such as the spacecraft bus, propulsion system, lander, camera, and comm system.

Most importantly, you have to minimize the cost of the launch, which is why we are looking at secondary or even tertiary payloads. With the electric propulsion system, we can live with a variety of orbits to get started - anywhere from LEO or GTO to TLI, and hitch a ride with the best priced launch we can find - preferably out of Florida to win the extra $2 million.

We think that for 200kg to a high LEO, we can buy the ride for around $5-6 million, and if we can get it sponsored at a discount, all the better.

The rover is a non-issue. Okay, it's not a non-issue, but we can space-proof about anything that can win the PRIZE parameters, as long as we have the right comms and cameras. I've instructed the engineers that the rover has to fit inside a shoebox, and weigh under 5 kg. This is doable.

Also, we plan on leasing/positioning as much on the ground as possible, to minimize the load carried by the craft. The better the dish network, the less powerful the comm transmitter has to be.

It all adds up, including salaries for the core team, as well as travel expenses, and everything, to somewhere under $16 million. If we can get it sponsored down a bit, great.

Thus, if we successfully complete the mission from Florida, we stand to win a net of about $6 million, or roughly a 35% ROI over about a 3 year investment - and that's just for the PRIZE money, not considering the long-term business capabilities that emerge from that success.

Plus, we'll keep our electric-propulsion-driven orbiter around the Moon for at least a year, allowing more science, data, imagery, and other potentially profitably applications to continue cash-flow thereafter.

I've run a defense business (XADS - Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems) against all odds, and my XADS team made it profitable and continued its growth in a highly competitive environment, doing things that only the "big guys" are supposed to be able to do. We've been successful where others have failed. We've already proven we can do the "unlikely", delivering production-ready systems at below budgets that the big defense primes would burn up in a paper study.

This GLXP mission is no different. Find the best people in the industry to do the job. Break down the mission into its constituent pieces. Innovate creative, but proven, approaches to meet each mission element. Select reputable and proven vendors. Negotiate and trade for the best price possible on each component. Integrate the mission. Launch it. Run the mission well on the ground. Win the PRIZE. Repeat.

So I say that no, you can't do this out of your garage. And I also say that, if you want to spend $60 - $150 million or whatever, sure you can do the mission that way. However, it's not making space all that accessible to anyone if you just do a mission the same way a big corporation would do it. Where is the innovation? Where is the point to prove? Hedge-fund managers can raise money - is that the only point of this Competition? Buy your way to the Moon?

Space is not easy. It is hard. It is not going to be a walk in the park. But LunaTrex will do this mission, and will do it for less than the PRIZE money, and will do it first, with help from Providence and the absence of Murphy...

Candor complete...

.


Comments

Please could you not shout

Please could you not shout the word "prize" every time you use it? It's rather distracting to read.
Thanks.

Still not buying IT!

>Developing more efficient engineering solutions is "rocket science" in it's truest form. Look to the example of "Computer science" which took giant slow expensive devices that filled entire rooms and put them in the hands of virtually everyone.

Nope, it is an exercise in ingenuity. "Rocket Science" is developing something new, not just perfecting something that has already been done. "Computer Science" has "only developed computers to the point to make them "profitable" to the mass public. Just like cars, etc.

Ok, I think we are spliting hairs here. The quote, "I am not impressed with things I expect!" Once something has been done for the first time, after that I expect it to be available to someone who makes minimum wage!

There is NOTHING the human being cannot do, but will the humans who make it possible be unselfish enough to make it possible for everyone?

>If it was not for SS1, there would not be a SS2. And that will lead to SS3, SS4,... Try looking forward and have a little faith.

There were people before SS1, who set the path for some rich, legally backed, people to do what has already been done. I have faith, and "have" looked forward and the path taken "at this time" and it will fail to develop Civilian Space Access. I will not fund programs that do not develop this, neither will the public, there are many other real issues that could be addressed right here on planet Bob!

Ok, I also realize my vision, experience, etc. is a 1000 years ahead of it's time!

>That's one opinion. Here's another, you could be wrong.

I SO HOPE I AM! But, 1+1 is not 3, unless you are talking about humans, but then I could be wrong!

LEARN for the past, LIVE today, and LOOK to the future!â„¢

Change, CHANGE we can ACTUALLY achieve!â„¢

SpaceCowboy
It's the Wild West out there, bring your Six Gun! YeeHaWWWW!

Space Just Done!

LunaTrex - A person or small group could do this out of their garage (or hangar)(with the appropriate minimal amount of funds), space is easy, the way your proposing is NOT opening up space access for everyone. Ok I give you the point that the prize can be won at 6-8 mil. profit, more if you go for the bonuses. But, you are mixing issues and comparing things that are just not comparable. GLXP is NOT rocket science, it is an exercise in efficiency at best to win the prize, BUT to open up space access to the public it won't help that a bit, maybe garner some interest in developing space for some people, BUT the average person no, these companies want you to pay them or support them going into space not you.

Mystery Team - The goal is to put a rover on the moon to send back video and pictures, and make Google and XPF a profit. Anything else is just for marketing purposes to make more down the road. NOPE, if a team spends more than the prize amount, then they ARE just buying a way to the moon! And, it will have NO impact on lowering or opening up space access or lunar access. Remember SS1, it cost 32 mil. to win 10 mil. at a net loss of 22 mil., and it has not been used to fly anyone to the edge of space (OK the pilot but they don't count), or lowered the cost or space access.

In conclusion, we are talking different things here:

1. Winning a contest at a profit! It can be done, but it is not going to open up space access or lunar access, or lower the cost of space access. (The GLXP is only doing what has already been done, WITHOUT the learning and developmental costs associated with the TASK. (The Government, Big Bussiness, and NASA get that credit even though it pains me to say that!) So there is NO excuse NOT to be done easier and more cost effective!

2. Opening up space access for some, the richees, commercial space, may be tried but will only happen after MANY have failed and alot of people have lost money. (99% of all attempts will fail just because the idea of how to do it is flawed or destin to fail or be unprofitable.)

3. Opening up space access for regular people, NEVER gonna happen, unless, the government promotes and foots the majority of the development of actual affordable space vehicles, infrastructure, regulations, etc. for civilian space access. Which is like trying to stop a frieght train by parking a Yugo in front of it! NEVER gonna happen, the train may slow down, but then it will just speed up back down along it's own track, then someone will put up barriers so YOU can't even cross the tracks!

Tell me.....am I standing on a SOAP BOX!

SpaceCowboy
It's the Wild West out there, bring your Six Gun! YeeHaWWWW!

Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

> GLXP is NOT rocket science, it is an exercise in efficiency

Developing more efficient engineering solutions is "rocket science" in it's truest form. Look to the example of "Computer science" which took giant slow expensive devices that filled entire rooms and put them in the hands of virtually everyone.

> Remember SS1, it cost 32 mil. to win 10 mil. ... and it has
> not been used to fly anyone to the edge of space

If it was not for SS1, there would not be a SS2. And that will lead to SS3, SS4,... Try looking forward and have a little faith.

> Opening up space access for regular people, NEVER gonna happen

That's one opinion. Here's another, you could be wrong.

Cost reductions are key

The importance of the goal, to increase access to the lunar surface by reducing costs, is clear.

So we should be careful to note the costs in terms of dollars per mass I think? Your projections puts a 5 kg rover (payload) on the moon for $16 million. That's $3.2 million per kg. Would you say that a team that puts an 80 kg payload on the moon for only $1 million per kg ($80 million total) has done a "better" job than you? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the LunaTrex vehicle, when scaled up to 80 kg, would see a larger cost per kg reduction? The analysis of cost comparisons is slippery animal.

How should we define cost reductions (in what units?) Is cost even the best measure of improved access?

I must say that I REALLY like the idea of the winning team spending less than the total prize purse. And I'm in the camp that believes that this goal, while difficult, is not impossible. But I'd suggest that a winning team which spends more than the purse will still contribute significantly to lowering the costs of lunar access. I would be slow to say that they simply bought their "way to the Moon" and quick to congratulate them and their sponsors/investors for the effort.