Regolith Excavation Challenge pits area engineers against a lunar task

Santa María Times (California) ^ | May 13th, 2007 | Luis Ernesto Gomez

[Shuttle Shucker]

"A seemingly simple challenge stumped four teams of engineers competing Saturday to be the first to build an autonomous robot capable of collecting 330 pounds of lunar soil in less than 30 minutes...[in order to win a $250,000 NASA prize].  The strict parameters - machines also could use only 30 watts of power and had to weigh less than 88 pounds as they excavated the simulated moon dirt - defeated the competitors. Two other teams dropped out before even landing at the competition... “No matter how efficient your machine is, the criteria of the challenge makes it almost impossible,” contestant Jim Greenshaw said." 

[Shuttle Shucker]

Could NASA and its tax-leeching contractor clique achieve a tenth as much even for ten times as much money (guaranteed money in their case)? What breakthroughs does NASA offer us for its $16 billion dollar annual budget? Does it not seem that NASA has a vested interest in making its (reluctantly offered) competitive prizes unwinnable?

[Shuttle Shucker]

The DOD’s DARPA doesn’t have nearly as many people and establishments competing against private industry, so its prizes are adequate, winnable and have actually been won:

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge

[Shuttle Shucker]

Notice how NONE of NASA’s prizes are even remotely as large?

http://www.centennialchallenges.nasa.gov

[Shuttle Shucker]

Here’s a reasonably good article on the competition which was released just prior to the revealing showdown this weekend:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070511_regolith_challenge.html

[Shuttle Shucker]

Here’s an interesting hypocrisy-exposer as well... How many senators running for president claim to want to reduce so-called global warming, or at least our dependence on oil from the Middle East? But have you noticed how they’re nevertheless so lacking in vision (or integrity, amidst the petro dollars that they seek) that they still refuse to sponsor the Energy Department’s potential “H Prize” for hydrogen fuel breakthroughs?

One can learn more about the “H Prize” at:

http://thomas.loc.gov , S.365

In the House, H.R.632 already has several dozen co-sponsors AND ACTUALLY PASSED LAST YEAR...only to languish due to Senate inaction including that of Senators McCain, Obama, Kerry(!) and Hillary Clinton.

For some reasonably recent articles on the H Prize:

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage6788.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/24/41211.aspx

&

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/22/38371.aspx

EXCERPT: “[p]rizes can provide an extra push, particularly for innovators who may be flying under the big automakers’ radar.”

For an additional analysis of the prizes paradigm:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/prizes

And for information about the only current or potential presidential candidate who aggressively backs government-sponsored prizes:

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3055

[Shuttle Shucker]

Newt said he’d be more likely to run for president if other candidates don’t adequately embrace ideas that he considers important. Have any OTHER candidates paid much if any attention to the competitive prizes issue, especially the lack of them in government procurement even as our national debt is at an all-time high:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm ?

[AntiKev]

What does NASA offer us for $16 billion a year? Exploration! Noone else has the vision and NASA is the only place where you get the ability and a significant amount of the money required for exploring our nearest solar neighbours. So quit it with the NASA bashing and go back under your rock. Anyone who thinks we shouldn’t be funding some way to get ourselves into space and off this God-forsaken rock has their head firmly implanted in their rectum.

First off, the prizes aren’t offered reluctantly, second they are winnable (ref: Astronaut Glove Challenge). Look what the X-Prize did for sub-orbital tourism. Not much yet, but in 2 or 3 years we’ll see the benefit. Much more than welfare or social security, which both encourage people to be lazy and not think about the future. Not to mention suck more and more of the federal budget every year leaving less and less money for useful programs like NASA.

Go read Dr. Robert Zubrin’s book “The Case for Mars” and then tell me that these prizes are a bad idea.

Also ping to Kevin and Civ for the lists.

And I apologize for being so abrasive, but this is a sore subject for me.

[RightWhale]

The Gov’t has no interest in developing outer space and since the UN Outer Space Treaty is in force will not allow private interests to develop outer space. Outer space will remain undeveloped forever.

[RightWhale]

some way to get ourselves into space

All this exploration and science in the presence of the Treaty is impeding our development of outer space.

[AntiKev]

I agree, we need to repeal the OST. Or just totally ignore it. I still need to find a copy and read exactly what it says. But my guess would be that Elon and Robert (Musk and Bigelow) have no intention of following it.

[Inquisitive1]

“No matter how efficient your machine is, the criteria of the challenge makes it almost impossible,” contestant Jim Greenshaw said."

Translation: "I Quit! It's too hard."

[RightWhale]

Elon and Robert (Musk and Bigelow) have no intention of following it.

Their activities are allowed. Whatever you own when you launch it remains yours.

The court decision reinforces the intent of the Treaty and removed any doubt as to its interpretation--no celestial body will become private property.

[AntiKev]

Okay, here's the link: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_18_1962.html

I've got a dumb question. Say NASA and Musk both end up on the moon. Say Musk and Bigelow start a hotel there. NASA's down at Shackleton, and M/B are at some equatorial lattitude. What? Will NASA send Marines down to enforce the OST? I don't think so.

The Russians are currently stuck in LEO, maybe the Chinese will send up some jack-booted thugs. Or the Indians. But right now there are only 2 countries with regular manned launches, and a third with intermittant manned launches.

I'm reminded of a saying, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

[KevinDavis]

[RightWhale]

Musk will be launching NASA and DOD payloads; that is his intent. Bigelow can build his orbiting hotel and that is fine with the Treaty. Nobody will be landing on the moon but National Space Agencies under the Treaty. Bigelow wil not move a shovel full of lunar regolith for his own use.

[Shuttle Shucker]

I agree that prizes are worthwhile but I believe they should be adequately funded, if not independently of NASA like the X Prize was.

NASA’s Astronaut Glove challenge is the only one that’s been won. I believe NASA’s 4 other prizes have NOT yielded a victor though.

NASA gets more money than all the rest of the world’s civilian space agencies combined. Don’t we deserve more bang-for-the-buck?

We are in strong agreement about welfare & social security, BTW. And I’m all for boosting the budget of our space endeavors, just not of NASA’s.

[RightWhale]

Will NASA send Marines down to enforce the OST?

It won't be NASA. It will be Gov't agents driving an ordinary Chevy to the business headquarters to padlock the doors and leave a notice of the court date.

[Shuttle Shucker]

You can find the Outer Space Treaty and others here:

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/index.html

Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty of the United Nations (ratified by around 100 member countries) states that:

“Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

Where does it say that private appropriation is banned, though?

[RightWhale]

private appropriation is banned

Court decision. It's over.

[Shuttle Shucker]

Are you sure you’re not experiencing a knee-jerk reaction in favor of NASA? Notice how NASA doles out far, far more of our tax dollars to contractors who accomplish considerably less. Is it not hypocritical of NASA’s pork establishment to simultaneously offer so little for genuine potential breakthroughs?