Moon X-Prize

Some. What's the idea (and how crazy).

I know that the x-prize is closed to new entrants, but I was wondering what it would take to crash a package onto the moon, no slow down just impact.

If the package was say 5 lbs and was on top of a solid rocket motor and that rocket was carried to 100,000 feet by balloon, on the ocean equator.

If we just got within the gravitation of the moon, gravity would do the rest.

This is just a Hail Mary, lets get some guys together a build a rocket and send it to the moon.

If ye'r interested one could pull some strings on immigration and arrange send ya there permanently. (Hope Wi-Fi off range)

Well, the idea has some merit. White Knight and White Knight II are an example of the basic concept. That is, launching a rocket from altitude. I think White Knight flies at about 50,000 feet.

The downside is that it still takes a hell of a lot of propulsion to get you to orbit, let alone to reach the Earth's escape velocity of about 25,000 mph.

You can also just power your way to the Moon and not need to go that fast, but you would use far more fuel to get there, so accelerating to the escape velocity is the cheapest way to do it, which still requires a lot of fuel.

Look at Apollo and you see the mass of the final payload (command capsule and LEM) was 67 times less than the mass of the whole rocket. A size-able portion of that mass was fuel.

The equations to calculate all this stuff is pretty straight forward and you can do it in Excel now days instead of having to use a slide rule, if you really want to get a handle on what is required.

You should have flown already your balloon-rocket along with the rover last March 19, 2011 when the moon is closest the Earth. Oh man, I guess you have to wait another 18 years for that to happen again, its your only chance.

I can't believe you are into it. Sorry

Well, I've spent enough time here. See ya around.

Thanks for the insult. I was going to go away just thinking that you were some young kid who didn't understand the physics involved.

Well, I was wrong. You are an arrogant young kid who doesn't understand the physics involved. And, you have no manners. If you were mine, I'd bend you over my knee and spank your arrogant a$s.

I don't know of any off-the-shelf programs in Excel, but you can search on the net and get the necessary equations yourself and use Excel to crank numbers for you.

Heck, you may find some on-line calculators to get the ball rolling. For instance, try calculating just how much fuel you save launching at 100,000 feet.

The equations for fuel to weight are obviously not going to be linear. If it was, you could use an Estes model rocket engine to send a gnat to Mars.

If it were really that easy it would have been done already. The mighty V2 rocket just reached the edge of space and even today that is a very difficult achievement and gaining orbit is another order of magnitude in difficulty.

Maybe you should search for amateur rocket clubs on the web to see what they are making and what they are capable of. You will find that these rockets fall far short of the goal needed to reach space, let alone orbit. However, it is a fascinating hobby.

Thanks Hero, I'll look into it.

I just think no one has really tried, I mean if it takes $10k/lb to orbit and $20k/lb to the moon (estimate), then 5 lbs would only be about $100k.

America has lost it's edge and it's because of mud slingers like these.

How hard could it be, even though only a handful of countries in the world have the capability with all the resources available to them. I think you'll need more than a spreadsheet and lots of rocket fuel.

It's one thing to do the numbers, but something completely different to execute.

Nuclear weapons come to mind as an excellent example. You can get all the plans you need from the internet, but actually making one... that's another story.

you would need a three stage rocket. Starting from 100,000 feet gives you zero speed - it just saves you accelerating through the denser lower atmosphere.

So, you could probably make a rocket that weighed 500 pounds that would reach escape velocity. Esp if you fueled with H2 and F2, the most energetic and had to handle fuels.

Could you do it with solid fuels? Maybe, but solids have a far lower specific impulse

so it may not be possible. There is a reason why there are no tiny orbital launch vehicles, the fact that volume is a cube function, so a larger rocket can be less efficient. Look at the Russian and other heavy launch systems

That is generally true, and is why solid rockets are used in conjunction with liquids types, and are usually tossed away after being burned to save weight.

In the shuttle system, building a toss away liquid system to have the same thrust duration as the SRBs they used may have saved weight, but would have a cost in complexity as well as in $$.

In any event, I envisioned thus 500 pound one use rocket as not needing thrust modulation of any kind, being just to dump 5# into the moon

well, graphite vanes in the exhaust stream to correctly adjust the vector. A lot depends on the velocity when you go past the point where the moons gravity is stronger than earths, if that is close to zero, then gravitational attraction will draw the 5# mass to the moon, if you have a large enough velocity that you might miss the moon and depart the solar system, then active guidance is needed.

I am sure that proper launch timing coupled with sufficient delta-V capacity on the part of the guided rocket would give the 5# weight the correct position to fall to the moon. Extra delta-V capability would allow wider variation in launch times, as would establishing a preliminary orbit - all of which add to the initial launch structure, which seems to be going up? And yes, efficiency with the proper orbital mechanics does save weight

Is there more than one Lunar X-Prize?

From Google Lunar X-Prize:

"PLAYA VISTA, CA (February 17, 2011) - Today, the X PRIZE Foundation announced the official roster of 29 registered teams competing for the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE, an unprecedented competition to send a robot to the Moon that travels at least 500 meters and transmit video, images, and data back to the Earth."

So, if your package augers in, how will it travel at least 500 meters and transmit video, images, and data back to the Earth? Or, don't you want the $30 mil?

if we just got within the gravitation of the moon, gravity would do the rest.

Probably, but you would have to get a lot closer. A LOT closer (and traveling in a similar direction and speed). Ideally a parallel course in front of it traveling slower than the moon. That is why the lunar missions used rockets to get them close and on a parallel course before using gravity (and more rockets) to land on the moon.

You do realise that the earth and moon are far from each other and moving at two different speeds, both of which are very fast, and gravity's effect if very, very slow in comparison. Think trying to land a spot of dust on a bullet (in a vacuum) using gravity.

Jack of all trades

I'm not saying its easy, but if NASA could do it with a thousand guys with sliderules, today a couple of guys with a laptop should do. Once something has been done it is easier to do the second time.

They also had some clever and highly educated and experienced guys and a nice budget. Oh, and big honking rockets.

The nearest comparison is in fact the competitor Russian program of the time (sending an unmanned probe to the moon to collect and return moon samples to earth before the Americans). Now THAT was ambitious, and ultimately failed (for a number of reasons).

Modern small scale space projects (like the school putting a teddy into orbit using a balloon) and small scale rocketry attempts (NZ had one, I think it was last year) are quite common. Getting to the moon is quite a bit harder, but still not impossible on a limited budget.

I say because we know the difficulties better, it makes it easier to accomplish. I originally was considering a brute force approach with a path like the one we originally took to the moon, but significant savings can be gained using sling shot orbits, like the ones we have used to send exploratory craft into space.

34point5 that was a GA though.

GA, and I sincerely thank you for your assistance.

I say because we know the difficulties better, it makes it easier to accomplish.

in what way? Because you have knowledge, the degree of difficulty remains?

Really, Phoenix911, it is much easier todo something that has already done once by someone else, than trying to figure out something that has never been done.

Not that this will be in anyway easy, just easier than it was for the guys in the 1960's.

A project like this, even using the knowledge gained since it was done before, not only degree of difficulty remains the same, but the risk also remains the same

Phoneix911,

Seriously Dude,

Knowledge gained = reduced difficulty, cause they won't be working from scratch, they won't have to reinvent the wheel.

As for risk thats a different function all together and is dependent on materials, quality of workmanship and other statistical probabilities.

Dont try to keep the guy down dude.

dude?

The only thing I'm keeping down is his feet on the ground.

By treating the issues of what they are.

And don't try to separate risk. The risk is there and I do not believe that the extend of risk is really recognized,....as far as the responses of it's high or it's huge. Those are just words. Knowing what kind of risks and addressing it is what keeps this from happening.

http://www.google.com/search?q=challenger+disaster&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=p5ijTb3lOs2cgQea4rjaBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=644

As simple as the problem this was, it created a total failure. Unless you want to count never to separating risk from the problem again.

This is not a pessimistic view, it's conservative.

Remember, it wasn't only optimistic BS that got us to the moon, it was facing the issues of what can go wrong and correcting it before it happens.

Phoenix, the question is about launching 5 pounds of stuff, his/her/their feet ARE staying on the ground. Don't be such a downer dude. You're bringing down the positive aura of CR4. Huuummmmm Ooouummmmmm

5 pounds, ....is that all?

You see it's not a downer, it only seems that way because your treating this like a walk in the park with a backpack.

Given the choice, hypothetical of course, if you were say an investor to get this done.

Which would you choose to construct the craft.

A yes we can, cuz I got the plans off the internet.

or

Someone that looks at the scope, goals and deliverables and saids.

We need people who know what their doing to accomplish this.

We need this amount capital to initiate this. Because he knows this is not going to be a walk in the park.

But if it makes you feel better #37 does sums it up better.

I think out of this thread, the OP now knows most of the hurdles, so is in a position to yea or nay.

To me it's much like the space flight one, where the investment required was in excess of the prize offered - but this is the decision of those involved.

I don't see a commercial extension of this, except maybe bot games on the moon, or perhaps 'scattering ashes'.

Encouragement? or discouragement?

Depends on how you read it. And if the OP is pragmatic enough to 'engineer this attempt' - or simply determined enough - neither will affect that.

Thx and GA, 34point5, and yes thats the plan these guys have, ashes or blood samples at $100/gram. And them and I will give it a lot of thought given the information here. So it comes down to; can a shoestring outfit put 5 lbs on the moon or 2,270 grams at $100 gram = US$227,000, for a cost of $200,000?

Ground controll communications around the globe are actually the big expensive part of the problem.

Now see - that's really a whole simpler problem - and stated straight out would have brought you much different 'attitude' by posters.

Because all you want to do is hit it;

You can use a ground launched solid fuel rocket and course correction with a few preprogrammed smarts via something as simple as compressed gas. You can target seek on it's illumination. It will hit in the lit part - your customers can watch. And 99% of "ground control" just disappeared.

Why you guys play coy is beyond me.

One thing you will have to do is sterilize the blood.

Why sterilize the blood when its in vacume?

Well it's not exactly. And your going to crash so energy and probably penetration, are provided. And you don't know what outcomes introducing bacteria, may, or may not, have, particularly sub surface.

Presuming at some point 'soil sampling', or settlement occurs, it might be quite inconvenient if a mutated form was waiting for settlers, or returned to Earth. If you remember the moon rocks went through extensive quarantine for this very reason.

So if you are going to 'contaminate' the moon with broken rockets, why not spend the extra $5 and 'play it safe' biologically?

Ok, GA, good idea.

NASA sterilizes everything before it goes up into space. This includes not only biological matter, but they are very careful about any particulate that may result in even a remote mission failure.

We already know that some biological forms of life can handle the environment of space comfortably.

Depends on how you read it. And if the OP is pragmatic enough to 'engineer this attempt' - or simply determined enough - neither will affect that.

Thank you, That is more of the point I was trying to get accross.

Why bother? NASA and the U.S.S.R have already done it. More than once.

Has someone left the back gate open again? The inmates have escaped and found their way to CR4!

Check with this guy. He's had some out-of-this-world ideas lately.

Chorete

That's for sure. He'll probably suggest you use a series of helicopters instead of a balloon.

I suggest building a very tall ladder, placing it next to a very large trampoline....

Jeeshh!!!..Don't forget Joefordham your favorite Right lyn?

You shouldn't disparage guys in a shed doing something.

Afterall NASA is just that , guys in a shed doing something,,big..in a big shed...

Do forget apple computer was just a couple of guys in a garage, etc. etc. etc. Just because you do not think a post has merit does not mean you need to riducule and try to take people down....

There's a lot of stuff available about Gravitational potential energy. ( E=GMm/r ) it's worth a look.

If you plug some numbers in, even assuming 100% efficiency, you'll see that pre-lifting the rocket will make little difference to the energy needed.

Usually if you have a choice between thinking "everyone else is stupid" or "I might not fully understand the problem", pick the latter. (it always works for me).

FFej, thx, however if people are just throwing rocks and not helping the cause then thats stupid.

Of course I don't fully understand the problem, thats why I'm here.

Here is a summary of some ideas expressed here so far, plus my own additional ones.

I have a feeling that you can do it if you really have the deep-rooted desire. Doing it before other competitors is the hardest part.

The balloon used to pre-lift the rocket has an advantage because it gets you past the atmospheric drag without burning precious fuel.

Be sure to time the earth's rotation to get added velocity.

Keep in mind that verification is not something to gloss over. If it lands on the moon and then does the required surface travel, it's got to be believable and verified. If you can't substantiate it without a doubt, no one will believe it.

A disadvantage to this whole concept that involves reaching the moon is that if this were to become too popular a hobby, the moon eventually could become relatively cluttered.

Actually hitting the moon would be easy if that were the only requirement. A survivable landing is pretty hard. You'll have to use a lot of automatic control because the distance of 240k (IIRC) miles means that there will be over a second delay in one way communication (c=186,000 miles/second). It won't be much like flying a radio controlled airplane. At the speeds involved, a lot can happen in the more than 2 second total delay time.

It would be a crazy-fun project, though. If I were a school-age student it would be one of the better pastimes I could do.

Well then just to give you a shot anyway.

Here's a simple idea. Consider distances of Earth & Moon below

The simplest idea to approach your problem is as follows.

The nearest moon to earth distances is at fullmoon or perigee, you may as well take the advantage. According to this weather balloon guy, they been flying these things 30,488 m high above the sea level. You might as well, consider.

You have a 5 lb load right?

The first you do to compute how much energy needed to reach zero gravity (at certain elevation above the earth).

1) compute for the local gravity the farthest the balloon could go at 30,488m using

the formula that approximates the Earth's gravity variation with altitude:

Where

• is the gravity measure at height above sea level.
• is the Earth's mean radius.
• is the standard gravity.

You should have a force ß > m to accelerate m=5lbs upwards until approach 0

The energy will be E1 = ß x (Elevation @ zero grav. - 30,488m)

At = 0, sending the 5lbs load to the moon will be this

E2 = 1/2mv²

The total Energy needed will be Et = E1+E2, you will have a lot of saving due to the ballooney idea.

The only problem is, how can you manage to get your balloon at your planned location.

Full moon can occur at perigee or apogee or anywhere else in between.

Yah, I agree

You are looking for answers that are very difficult to convey. Attempting to try something like this on your own, using blog sites could turn out to improve the survival of the fittest.

You need a more solid background. Junior college may help as a first step.

You wrote, "f you plug some numbers in, even assuming 100% efficiency, you'll see that pre-lifting the rocket will make little difference to the energy needed."

And that is because it is more about velocity than altitude.

But the cost may be a lot less considering ground launch facilities, government regulation, etc., etc. And if you ignore the regulations to cut cost, don't forget the fines.

I'm not a rocket engineer. I think the idea is expensive, but who knows, you could win the lottery. There are enough replies giving you some technical information. You might enjoy a movie on DVD called "The Astronaut Farmer" - about a farmer (engineer) who built his own rocket so he could orbit the earth. He had no trouble with the authorities until he ordered 10000 gallons of rocket fuel - that got their attention.

And if ever I have an idea, Why should I brought it up here in the first place? It's a contest, yah know

How would agree of the idea that people should take advantage of other peoples superb solutions.

Well, I guess the reason why they bring it here is only for exhibition

Thanks all for the suggestions and positive criticism. GA to all. Firestar technologies has a new liquid fuel and motor design that is supposedly an order of magnitude, more efficient. I haven't talked to them about any hypothetical launch cost, it seems extremely efficient. I think the posibility of small scale space access is becoming possible. As for the position of the balloon... thats part of the patent.

Thanks