Google backs private Moon landing, Google is offering a $30m prize pot to private firms that land a |
Google backs private Moon landing, Google is offering a $30m prize pot to private firms that land a |
Sep 14 2007, 08:02 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 11-October 04 From: Oxford, UK (Glasgow by birth) Member No.: 101 |
FROM: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6993373.stm
Firms interested in trying for the prize have until the end of 2012 to mount their Moonshot Anyone fancy a crack at this? Cheers Brian -------------------- "There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary code, and those who don't."
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 02:57 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8785 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
This Google prize is getting a LOT of media attention, so perhaps that's the whole objective. Notice also that they're offering $5M bonuses for visiting "historical sites", which of course would mean Apollo landing sites.
Still...$30M isn't much of an incentive, unless it's meant to help an aspiring company recoup at least some of its development costs. Presumably any company that could pull this off would be "made", though, and perhaps become a prime govt contractor for lunar exploration someday...something like a super MSSS. Doug's right, though; at the end of the day, it's hard to figure out what Google's real angle is in this; they need more publicity like I need more alimony. Do you suppose that they're so rich that true philanthrophy is their core motivation? (Nah...I don't think so either!) EDIT: Horrible thought- Rover lands at Tranquility Base, drives right over Neil's first footprint on the Moon... -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 03:49 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
EDIT: Horrible thought- Rover lands at Tranquility Base, drives right over Neil's first footprint on the Moon... Would that not have been scoured off during the LEM ascent stage lift off? Or trodden on by Aldrin before that? Still, I think an exclusion zone around the current landing sites might be in order. Until the Heritage Infrastructure has built up a bit. ;-) Andy |
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 05:08 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
Would that not have been scoured off during the LEM ascent stage lift off? Or trodden on by Aldrin before that? Still, I think an exclusion zone around the current landing sites might be in order. Until the Heritage Infrastructure has built up a bit. ;-) Andy Hmmm.. that first bootprint was almost certainly overtrodden by both Armstrong *and* Aldrin durng the course of the EVA. It was just off the footpad, after all, on the side of the footpad facing the MESA, and they did a lot of work at the MESA. But for the whole scene, overall, I think that Tranquility Base ought to remain untouched and "unsullied" for now. I'd have no problems with rovers visiting any of the other five Apollo landing sites -- they're historical, but not so much as that first one. A few more rover tracks wouldn't damage anything at, say, Hadley or Taurus-Littrow. Or even at Fra Mauro. In fact, I think Fra Mauro would be a great place for an unmanned rover. Work it right and we might *finally* get to look into Cone Crater. I think it would be appropriate to allow Ed Mitchell to drive a rover right up to Cone's rim and be the first to look inside... or maybe, if Ed can't do it, let Jim Lovell and Fred Haise do it! -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Sep 17 2007, 05:18 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2922 Joined: 14-February 06 From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France) Member No.: 682 |
But for the whole scene, overall, I think that Tranquility Base ought to remain untouched and "unsullied" for now. I'd have no problems with rovers visiting any of the other five Apollo landing sites -- they're historical, but not so much as that first one. A few more rover tracks wouldn't damage anything at, say, Hadley or Taurus-Littrow. Or even at Fra Mauro. In fact, I think Fra Mauro would be a great place for an unmanned rover. Work it right and we might *finally* get to look into Cone Crater. I think it would be appropriate to allow Ed Mitchell to drive a rover right up to Cone's rim and be the first to look inside... or maybe, if Ed can't do it, let Jim Lovell and Fred Haise do it! -the other Doug I like these ideas O Doug, lot of souvenirs.... I like also Nprev's : Heck, I vote for Apollo 12; it's a two-fer, along with Surveyor 3! but because Apollo 12 is the only site where we didn't get LIVE TV transmissions -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th September 2024 - 11:48 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |