Google Lunar Prize

Will the announcement be webcast anywhere?

Posted by xraydog at 09/13/07 09:39:49

Yawn . . .

20 mil. to land a rover, travel 0.5 km and transmit a HD transmission with telemetry to earth. Right . . .

Oh I forgot, a bouus 5 mil. if it can travel and additional 5 km.

They might as well give the runner up prize to not-so-flyin-Brian right now. He will obviously be as successful in X-Prize 2.0 as he was when he came in second in X-Prize 1.0.

WOW, that made me sleepy. zzzzzz . . .

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 10:26:38

Congratulations and kudos to the X PRIZE Foundation for developing an exciting yet thoughtful set of prize objectives and securing the funding and other sources of support for it.

It’s rather sad, though, that NASA has no substantive role in this endeavour. Had Congress and NASA properly funded the Centennial Challenges program, this competition could have started years ago. Between a lack of NASA prize funding, the effective termination of NASA’s Lunar Robotic Exploration Program, and the deferrel of decisions on Ares V/EDS/LSAM to the next White House, the agency’s relevance to future lunar exploration is rapidly receding. Too bad… but thank goodness private entities like the X PRIZE are there to pick up some of the pieces.

Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 10:58:08

anonymous.space,

You're joking right?

XP-2.0 has as much chance of succeeding as XP-Cup did. ZERO.

If memory serves me correctly, Scaled composites spend over 20 mil. to win the XP-1.0 (10 mil.)

Please lets not turn this into ANOTHER it's NASA / ARES / ORION / etc. fault conversation.

Hell, let's already start XP-3.0. It will be to invent a time machine so we can back back before XP-1.0 and complain about NASA not funding a contest to spur on Sub-Orbital space tourisim, making the X-Prize foundation have to do it.

The bonus money will be to go back further and invent the internet so that you can complain about NASA not being around so you could complain about them NOT sponsoring a Trans-Atlantic flight, making Orteig have to sponsor one.

Rant Over.

O.K. I'm awake again.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 11:24:58

A salute to the X Prize Foundation and Google for having the vision to start this.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at 09/13/07 11:36:56

Just a therory but I am guessing that Peter has enshrined this time exclusive rights to the transmissions. And all marketing rights.
Just when I thought there was nothing more ridiculous than RPK...along comes
Peter Diamandis.
This prize is no ware near proportional to the task at hand.
I see this as nothing more than to extend the life of the X-prize foundation.
My guess is that at this years X-Prize cup the usual suspects will be out there,
In tow with wood mock-ups and Bold plans to land on the moon. Fighting for the spot light.
20 million for a prize....not quite enough! remember Burt spent at least that on SS1.
I would think a minimum prize should be $100 million.
even for orbit 20-25mill is a very small amount.
Come on Peter get real.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 11:43:09

Buck, could I just have the 2 cents instead? Your version of it doesn't quite exchange very well. (BTW, if you don't think XPC is successful, I suggest you not show up this year)

Its interesting to note that X Prize has partnered with some companies/organizations to make things a little easier, like SpaceX offering a discount for launching the probe.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 09/13/07 11:46:29

Ya Not So Flyin Brian will be all over this one. I don't think he is doning anything else up in Canada.

I agree the purse should be about 10x what it is.

Flop!

Posted by Number 2 at 09/13/07 11:52:12

Am I mistaken or did Brian Feeney not partner with Kathuria after the Xprize to work on a new company?

Posted by Al Parke at 09/13/07 11:55:39

Lindberg spent more than the $10,000 he won for the Ortig Prize on the effort. That doesn't make me wish that the Ortig Prize wasn't offered.

Prizes can be overdone, diminishing their luster, but I think this one has a shot.

The 'preferred partners' of SpaceX and the Allen Array are particularly interesting.

Posted by Tom at 09/13/07 11:56:46

Al Parke - you are mistaken. It was the Canadaian Arrow team that has partnered with Kathuria, to form Planetspace. Brian Feeney wasn't part of the Canadian Arrow team

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 09/13/07 11:59:06

Sorry, just found that Ortig Prize was $25K.

Posted by Tom at 09/13/07 11:59:53

Ferris,
I got agree with Buck,
x-prize...successfully added some credibility to the garage rocket scientist. And was won, albeit a bit of a one horse race.

XPC...what happened to rocket racing ????..
I do like the "Godzilla" destruction moment with the giant planets rolling around.

Lunar Xprize....well I just don't see there being enough financial motivation to do it. the prize is just too tiny.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 12:05:25

I'm Verne Jules, and I'd like to announce the "BB" Prize. Contestants will be required to construct a cannon of considerable size (hereinafter referred to as a "BB Gun"), and use the aforementioned BB Gun to launch a regulation standard-sized Internet Troll (the "BB") to the Moon (one-way, of course). I can't say what the prize fund will be at this stage, but it will be "substantial". All those two cents really start to add up, y'know!

Posted by Verne Jules at 09/13/07 12:05:34

Al Parke,

That was Geoff Sheerin not Brian Feeney
who partnered with Kathuria to for Planetspace, close but not quite!
both are Canadian

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 12:10:27

Ferris Valyn,

I don't mean the exposition, I mean the REAL XP-Cup. Where they were going to have vertical "drag races". The one that they invented "Rocket Racing" as a stop gap measure, because after Burt "moth balled" SS1, there was no other company to build vehicles to "race".

My suspicion, is that XP-2.0 will replace the Wirefly/XP-whatever.

After Armadillo wins the LLC, what will be left? As Ed points out, the usual suspects with mock-ups in tow and lots of exciting promises.

Tom,

without a proportional prize, where will these companies get funding to build this hardware? RpK is going to loose their COTS SAA and they have a better shot (I can't believe I just said that) at making money from a COTS-II contract that anyone successfully landing a lunar rover does winning the 20-25 mil. and selling their ability to land rovers on the moon.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 12:10:46

my bad!
:)

Posted by Al Parke at 09/13/07 12:12:31

Ed, well, actually, the Rocket Racing is moving foward. Not at the pace people would like, but it is moving forward. They've got the first one built (full vehicle, not wooden model), and they do have some teams.

In addition, XPC wasn't just the Rocket Racing. Look at the Lunar Lander Challenge, for actual hardware (Pixel, Masten's Xa 0.1, Unreasonable Rocket) - all of that is flight hardware. I'd hardly call that wooden mockups. Yes, undoubtably there will be some there, but I am willing to bet that the amount of flight hardware at XPC will number greater than the amount of mockups at XPC

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 09/13/07 12:14:31

Ya I am not sure anyone is looking at the financials of this critically.
Where is Ekkehard Augustin when you need him.
$20 million is not going to cover even half of the cost of this.
I like the idea the just need some real money behind it.

Posted by Number 2 at 09/13/07 12:18:06

Verne Jules,

I like that, BB Gun, although I rather thought of myself as a howitzer. Yeah, the howitzer of love !!!

It's O.K. even though these $ 0.02 add up I can afford to keep participating in these educational conversations.

Al Parke,

No-So-Flyin-Brian Feeney was/is the intrepid leader of the DaVinci project, later known as "GoldenPalace.com Space Program, powered by The DaVinci Project". Canadian Arrow actually built some hardware during XP-1.0, they, unfortunately, disappeared after being absorbed by Kathuria/PlanetSpace.

Again, my $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 12:22:18

Lindbergh didn't start selling flights over the Atlantic, either. I'm not saying that this will spark some sort of robots-to-the moon gold rush, just that it will have a positive impact. In Lindbergh's case, one impact he had was helping the Guggenheims fund Robert Goddard's work.

Someone who likes having their name mentioned along with Paul Allen's as the 'Angels' who made such things happen will step up. It only takes one or two. Others joining in would simply make it more interesting.

BTW, you can keep the $0.02.

Posted by Tom at 09/13/07 12:24:41

Tom,

Check the numbers, If Google wanted to make this INTERESTING, they would have made they prize amount something REASONABLE, like 200 mil.

It's one thing for someone like Paul Allen to invest in the creation of a new industry, Space-Tourism, it's quite another to find mega-angels to invest in "robots-to=the-moon".

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 12:37:20

Canadian Arrow actually built some hardware during XP-1.0, they, unfortunately, disappeared after being absorbed by Kathuria/PlanetSpace.

absorbed is right...on minute they seem to be doing all kinds of stuff. next the announcement of Planetspace and being fully funded....than nothing.
sad really Looked like a lot of potential in the engineering group form Arrow. Dose anybody know if they are doing anything or what there deal is?
It has been at least 3 or 4 years.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 12:41:23

While people here are whining on the "too little money" offered etc... The leading candidate is already putting together plans for winning the prize. So stop whining...

As of today there's more incentive to get a payload to moon than yesterday.

Okay, 20 mil. so how much does a Falcon 1 on discount cost? The rest is left for 3rd/TLI stage & lander & rover development/engineering, etc... Using a newspace(tm) budget it shouldn't be impossible. The XPrize 2.0 will certainly spur development.

My $ 0.04 worth... yawn, indeed...

Posted by Fcuk.bundy at 09/13/07 13:03:21

Fcuk.bundy,

WOW, you're clever.

Falcon-I, to the best of my recolection, has never made a successful flight. What makes you believe that it is capable of a delivering the 3rd stage/rover to the moon?

NweSpace budget, yeah, ask RpK about that.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 13:12:52

"anonymous.space,

You're joking right?"

No.

"XP-2.0 has as much chance of succeeding as XP-Cup did. ZERO."

I don't know what your definition of success is, but the 2007 X-PRIZE Cup won't be held for another month. I'm pretty sure that we can't declare success or failure until after the event is held.

"If memory serves me correctly, Scaled composites spend over 20 mil. to win the XP-1.0 (10 mil.)"

So? What relevance does the cost of an x-vehicle that goes to 100 km with wings, manned controls, and a total mass in the thousands of kilograms have to do with the cost of a lander/rover that goes the Moon with wheels, computer/remote controls, and a total mass in the tens or hundreds of kilograms?

Several teams, including BlastOff! (which involved Tony Spear of Mars Pathfinder fame), have priced out small (10x-100x kilogram) lunar lander/rover missions in the low tens of millions of dollars. With the availability of even cheaper launchers like Falcon I and the Ruskie Rockot, the emergence of commercial space telemetry and tracking providers like USL, the groundwork done in the LLC, the continued shrinkage of computer and communications components, the fact that a short-lived rover won't need radiation hardening, and the other support outlined in the X-PRIZE release, it's eminently doable within the dollars Google is offering.

"Please lets not turn this into ANOTHER it's NASA / ARES / ORION / etc. fault conversation."

I never mentioned Orion or Ares I.

What I did point out was that NASA has cancelled every mission in it Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP) after the Lunar Robotic Orbiter (LRO). That means that NASA has terminated all of its lunar robotic rovers and landers.

I also pointed out that there has been no new funding for NASA's prize program, Centennial Challenges, for several years.

I think it's sad statement about NASA that our nation's only lunar lander/rover effort and only true lunar prize is being sponsored by Google and not by our nation's space agency. I don't begrudge Google, and I think what they're doing is great. But as of today, a private company is at the tip of the spearpoint for this nation's lunar return, not NASA.

If the trend continues, it's not clear what relevance NASA will have in the future. And there is reason to believe that the trend will continue, given that the funding start for NASA's actual human lunar hardware (Ares V/EDS/LSAM) has been pushed out to 2011. The constant termination and delay of actual lunar exploration efforts at NASA to feed the development and operation of LEO launch vehicles and the ISS does not bode well for NASA exploration in the future.

"It will be to invent a time machine"

Please turn off the snarky attitude. If you can't offer a critique based on logic and facts, instead of hyperbole and straw-man arguments, don't bother.

"so we can back back [sic]"

Please also read your posts before sending them so they're intelligible to us English speakers.

"before XP-1.0 and complain about NASA not funding a contest to spur on Sub-Orbital space tourisim, making the X-Prize foundation have to do it."

It's not NASA's job to sponsor prizes or otherwise directly support space tourism. That's not in the agency's charter.

But it is NASA's job to explore space. And as of today, Google is sponsoring our nation's lunar surface exploration, not NASA.

"The bonus money will be to go back further and invent the internet so that you can complain about NASA not being around so you could complain about them NOT sponsoring a Trans-Atlantic flight, making Orteig have to sponsor one."

Cut the hyperbole. Your time machine snarkiness and the Orteig Prize have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

"Rant Over."

Look, if you've got an axe to grind against the X-PRIZE Foundation, fine. But don't drag me into it.

And if you feel compelled to drag me into it, at least bother to do your homework and construct an argument based on facts and logic, not faulty comparisons between manned Earth atmospheric vehicles and unmanned lunar landers/rovers and goofy time machine stories.

Sheesh...

Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 13:38:46

Falcon 1 would deliver a payload to orbit. The payload would consist of the 3rd stage which you can call the translunar injection stage. TLI stage gets the rest of the stack to moon orbit. The TLI stage or the rest of the pack decelerates to the orbit. The lander lands to the moon, the rover gets the 500 meters, etc.

Get the idea?

So Falcon 1e has a payload capacity of 700kg to 300km LEO orbit (You don't believe, fine don't). Anyway, that's the starting point for calculations, prize 8.5 mil (not counting the discount).

Means that the actual moon rover is probably in the kilogram range (depends on a lot of variables). Not impossible, not easy.

But the POINT is: why whine about the prize. Instead you can speculate if and how it can be done. Newspace(tm) budget, see Armadillo.

$ 0.02 still a bit overrated.

Posted by f.b. at 09/13/07 13:41:54

in response to Fcuk.buddy,
If I offer a prize for $50 million to drive a rover around the surface and transmit episodes of "Queer eye for the Straight guy" from the surface of Mars,
would this be enough to entice you? after all it is gay and $50 million more than what is being offered right now.

My point is just because you put a purse out there for millions dose not mean that it is enough to entice entrants. Call me crazy but on a project like this I would guess a certain amount of mathematical knowledge is needed.

Again I like the idea...the problem is the prize is so ridiculous, it is a bust before it even begins.
I original figured this prize might be just to put something in orbit and be worth around $100 million.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 13:58:51

"If memory serves me correctly, Scaled composites spend over 20 mil. to win the XP-1.0 (10 mil.)"

So? What relevance does the cost of an x-vehicle that goes to 100 km with wings, manned controls, and a total mass in the thousands of kilograms have to do with the cost of a lander/rover that goes the Moon with wheels, computer/remote controls, and a total mass in the tens or hundreds of kilograms?

are you serious? you can't see the comparison?
I have to come to Bucks defence on this one.
I understand his point.
If it cost over 20mil to get to suborbital space do you honestly believe that 20mil would cover the cost to go to the moon.

anonymous.space....I would stay anonymous if I were you.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 14:05:38

anonymous.space,

I don't have an "axe to grind" with the X-Prize foundation.

I applaud the concept and vision of the X-Prize foundation for the original XP-1.0. It truly was inspired and will go down in history as the starting point for Alt.Space, and Real Space tourism (not to be confused with billionaires buying Soyuz tickets to the ISS).

You should understand that when I refer to the XP-Cup, I'm not referring to the exhibition that has been running since 2005. I'm talking about the vertical "drag races" utilizing sub-orbital vehicles developed during XP-1.0 and subsequently.

Not to be confused with the X-COR Rocket Racers which are airplanes with rocket engines, developed as a stop gap because there were no sub-orbital vehicles.

Here's the problem. Space is NOT easy for anyone. There are so many people/companies making promises and telling everyone how easy it is to build vehicles/systems to fly to space, that the general public believes it.

Listen to some of the interviews that Elon Musk has done on The Space Show with Dr. Livingston. He openly tells how he misjudged the task of building Falcon-1, and he hasn't even had a successful launch.

For all my rhetoric, I wish him well. Alt.Space needs a successful launcher and once they get the kinks worked out I think Space-X will have a family of them.

Burt Rutan mothballed SS1 after X-Prize because he knew it wasn't the vehicle to start the Space Tourism industry. In spite of the pressure, Burt refuses to bend to the community/market and is leaving the development schedule open ended.

John Carmack is doing development incrementally as well. They have successes and failures and move forward. I haven't seen and outlandish promises from Armadillo.

I have a very low B.S. tollerance. XP-2.0 smells bad. I may be wrong. This may be the impetus for a new wave of development.

Somehow I don't believe that any of the companies capable of building a system win XP-2.0 aren't currently working towards another goal and would suddenly divert themselves to winning 20/25 mil.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 15:28:29

"are you serious?"

Yes.

"you can't see the comparison?"

I see it, but it's a non-sensical comparison.

The two systems have almost nothing in common, and there are numerous comparisons that play in favor of the lunar lander's cost.

SS1's dry mass was 1,200 kg. The lunar lander/rover's dry mass will be a small fraction of that -- tens, maybe hundreds of kilograms.

SS1 had to bear the cost of developing its own launch system (White Knight). The lunar lander/rover doesn't carry that burden and can buy a cut-rate launch from Space-X or an even cheaper ride on a Ruskie LV.

SS1 had to develop its own hybrid propulsion system from scratch. The lunar lander/rover can leverage all the work already done in the NASA/X-PRIZE LLC.

SS1 was manned and had to include crew safety and support systems. The lunar rover is unmanned and doesn't have to worry about crew safety or support.

SS1 had to fly multiple times, adding considerable reliablity, redundancy, and recovery to its systems. The lunar lander/rover just has to work once.

Just because the lunar lander/rover is going a lot farther than SS1, doesn't mean it's going to be a lot (or at all) more expensive. To first order, mass and complexity drive the cost of aerospace systems, not distance. SS1 is way more massive and considerably more complex than a small robotic lunar lander/rover.

"If it cost over 20mil to get to suborbital space do you honestly believe that 20mil would cover the cost to go to the moon."

Absolutely. A cut-rate Falcon I launch is $8 or 9 million and will put a 600 kg mass into orbit, plenty for the TLI stage and lander/rover if the rover stays in the mass range of a few tens of kilograms. I'd combine the TLI stage and lander stage into one to save costs (no need to duplicate engines), dropping the TLI propellant tanks after the TLI burn. Given their now high flight heritage and appropriate delta-V for a lunar landing, I'd specifically use an Armadillo engine, propellant, and control setup for the TLI/lander stage. Armadillo is building those stages for thousands of dollars today, but let's assume it runs into a WAG of a few million dollars ($3-4 million) for a space-qualified model with extra propellant tanks for the TLI burn.

Even after paying for the Falcon launch ($8-9 million) and the TLI/lander stage ($3-4 million), that still leaves $7-9 million for the rover itself and the operations. Even NASA has built gold-plated, asteroid micro-rovers like MUSES-CN for about $20 million. A lean entrepreneurial effort should easily be capable of more than halving that. And their job is especially easy given that the rover doesn't have to have a long lifespan -- no need for rad-hardening and similar measures -- and given that USN and the SETI Institute are donating antenna time.

Even if a team wanted to pursue a more expensive approach, there's nothing that prevents them from pursuing markets -- corporate sponsorships, landed payloads like cremains and memorabilia, technology demos, sales of their own imagery, etc. -- that would pay for missions exceeding the $20 million mark.

I'd also remind folks that DoD and NASA have completed very successful lunar orbiter missions (Clementine and Lunar Prospector) for money in the mid-tens of millions of dollars. It's not such a leap from a relatively larger, government-run orbiter mission in the $60 million range, which had to pay for several gold-plated science instruments and more expensive launches, to a smaller, privately-run lander/rover mission in the $20 million range that launches on cheaper vehicles and has no science requirements.

"anonymous.space....I would stay anonymous if I were you."

And (Anonymous) Ed, I wouldn't impugn other posters without thinking through some of the relevant cost comparisons and tallies first.

Sheesh...

Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 15:37:08

"I'm talking about the vertical "drag races" utilizing sub-orbital vehicles developed during XP-1.0 and subsequently."

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? So what if the X PRIZE Foundation has never raised the necessary funding for vertical drag racing prizes? That doesn't mean that a lunar landing prize for which they have actually raised funding is automatically going to fail.

I'm not here to defend the X PRIZE folks, but some of the connections being drawn here are just goofy.

"Listen to some of the interviews that Elon Musk has done on The Space Show with Dr. Livingston. He openly tells how he misjudged the task of building Falcon-1, and he hasn't even had a successful launch."

So what? What's the relevance, other than the fact that if Falcon 1 fails, lunar lander teams might be forced overseas to use even cheaper Ruskie launchers? Of course aerospace, or any engineering project, is hard. That doesn't mean that every such project is doomed to failure.

"Burt Rutan mothballed SS1 after X-Prize because he knew it wasn't the vehicle to start the Space Tourism industry. In spite of the pressure, Burt refuses to bend to the community/market and is leaving the development schedule open ended."

Again, so what? What's the point, other than the fact that Rutan proved that space prizes could be won?

"They have successes and failures and move forward. I haven't seen and outlandish promises from Armadillo."

For the fourth time, so what? What's the point, other than the fact that Armadillo's engines and software make for a pretty sweet lunar lander?

"Somehow I don't believe that any of the companies capable of building a system win XP-2.0 aren't currently working towards another goal and would suddenly divert themselves to winning 20/25 mil."

Who says the winner or competitors have to come from any of the existing enterpreneurial space companies?

"I have a very low B.S. tollerance."

No, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Please don't involve me in your terribly ill-informed and illogical posts in the future.

What a waste of time...

Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 15:54:47

Too much naysaying going around, I think I'll skip the pigwrestling for now ^_^

I haven't had a chance to read the details yet but has it struck anyone else that this prize begs for teams made up of several sub-teams specializing on their own part of the goal?

1. Escaping Earth:
- SpaceX rebate special (lovely!)
- others might be ready/willing in time

2. TLI & lunar descent:
- At least all of the NG LLC entrants could fit the role. This new X-Prize is a perfect extention of the NG LLC!

3. Lunar Rover:
- All DARPA Grand Challenge entrants could fit the bill (I, II & ...a future third GC? I've lost track of what's happening with GC, has the urban driving one been done already?)
- there are >loads< of robotics savvy people around to form new teams

The way I see this X-Prize it's an "inverted" prize because the smarter you can build the rover, the smaller & lighter you can make it, the easier all the other parts get.

I really hope someone goes for a less-than one kilogram (2.2 pounds) rover solution. Except for the solids like electric engines, batteries, perhaps a small solar panel & heating element (if you're going to stay as long as possible), and circuits & sensors the whole thing could simply be inflated (yeah, including the dish too and axles and other structural elements).

If the rover gets light enough there might be some cool lunar descent options like a part-way tethered lander with the TLI stage acting as a counterweight...

Ok time to go read the rules ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 09/13/07 18:14:32

anonymous.space,

Since we agree to disagree, I guess time will tell.

Sorry you feel your time was wasted.

:(

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/13/07 19:11:08

anonymous.space just stop. Just stop!
You sound like you are adolescent new space fanboy.
"Ill informed and illogical" do you even know what this means? I am reading this banter from the outside and while Buck may sound negative he makes some very clear and LOGICAL points.
Oh and just because you say "so what"
Doses not mean there was no logical point made...who are you Bill O'Reilly.

No body will claim the prize before 2012.

"Even if a team wanted to pursue a more expensive approach, there's nothing that prevents them from pursuing markets -- corporate sponsorships, landed payloads like cremains and memorabilia, technology demos, sales of their own imagery, etc. -- that would pay for missions exceeding the $20 million mark."
"And (Anonymous) Ed, I wouldn't impugn other posters without thinking through some of the relevant cost comparisons and tallies first."

I am anonymous, sure. What I can tell you is that I now more than you think about doing this. And buddy you have no idea what is involved. None!
Keep dreaming...I hope you are right someday.

Posted by Ed at 09/13/07 19:25:35

"You sound like you are adolescent new space fanboy."

Two points:

1) I already stated that "I'm not here to defend the X PRIZE folks". I'm neither a fan nor a detractor. I was here to merely post a simple note of congratulations about the prize and a note of concern about NASA when some uninformed jerkwad named Buck involved me in his self-professed "rants", not once, but TWICE. All my posts after the first one are not about defending newspace or entrepreneurial space or any other kind of space endeavour. My posts are all about about showing this uninvited idiot how wrong he is so he'll shut up and stop insulting and impugning me with arguments that don't have a lick of logic or fact behind them.

2) If you can't put forward an argument without throwing insults, offering nothing in the way of counterfactual evidence or logic, and thumping your chest about how much you suppossedly know, then you should also shut up, sit down, and stop involving me in your blithering stupidity.

"I am reading this banter from the outside"

Here's a hint for you, Ace... we're all reading this from the outside.

[rolls eyes]

"and while Buck may sound negative

Look, Eddie, my boy, it has nothing to do with whether your friend Buck is negative or not. It wasn't me who replied to Bucks' post. It was Buck who replied to mine, not once, but TWICE. And if he's going to do that, throw insults around, and have nothing to back them up but a bunch of poorly constructed arguments lacking in both logic and facts, then I have every right to refute his arguments in detail and shut him down.

Same goes for you if you insist on continuing in this vein.

"he makes some very clear"

What could anyone possibly find "clear" in Buck's rambling "rants"? What could possibly be clear in a bunch of randomly collected points about vertical drag racing, Musk's latest radio interview, Rutan's schedule, and Armadillo's technical conservatism as it relates to the viability of this new lunar prize? There isn't a single thread of relevance and hardly a point to be made in any of that.

Are you really so dense as to think otherwise?

"and LOGICAL points."

What's "logical" in Buck's posts? That a manned, winged, thousand-plus kilogram, suborbital spacecraft that had to fly multiple times and develop its own launch vehicle and propulsion system cost should automatically cost much less to develop than an unmanned, non-atmospheric, ten- to hundred-kilogram, lunar spacecraft that only has to work once and can leverage existing launch vehicles and propulsion systems? That just because the Moon is so much farther away that any mission that goes there will automatically be much more costly than a manned suborbital spacecraft?

Are you really so uninformed and lacking in critical thinking skills as to believe that?

"No body will claim the prize before 2012."

Where the hell did I claim that anyone would make 2012? Did you attend some impoverished school district where they failed to teach reading comprehension? Or have you not been taking your ADD medicine?

Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't put together a coherent response without relying on such a weak, non-relevant, strawman argument, then don't bother.

"What I can tell you is that I now more than you think about doing this."

Well then demonstrate it, tough guy. If you're such hot stuff, then put together a logical argument that refutes my points. Do a little research and put together some counterfactual points. I'm more than willing to be educated and corrected.

But don't sit here and thump your chest about how great and all-knowing you are and offer nothing to back it up.

Oh, and yeah, I'm sure you "now [sic]" more.

[rolls eyes]

"buddy you have no idea what is involved."

I'm not your "buddy", tough guy. I'm a man with small spacecraft study experience who wanted to post a simple note of congratulations on an exciting day and who did not expect to be insulted REPEATEDLY for it. If you can't understand or respect that, then please take a course in basic human decency so you'll know to keep your vapid, self-aggrandizing, insulting, blowhard posts to yourself the next time around.

Ugh...

Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 21:51:31

anonymous.space.....adolescent!
ah Yes.
Thanks "buddy" for proving my point.

I am not sure what is more funny the fact that you don't understand, or that you insist on continuing such lengthy dissertations about "facts" and and what logic means to you.
Good luck on the science project.

Posted by Ed at 09/14/07 05:51:33

"I'm not your "buddy", tough guy. I'm a man with small.... "
Posted by anonymous.space at 09/13/07 21:51:31

never mind! :)

Posted by Number 2 at 09/14/07 06:01:14

wow this thread just keeps going!

Clark, this has to be a new record

Posted by Number 2 at 09/14/07 06:04:25

anonymous.space,

I thought I was finished posting here, but after reading your responses directed here, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

"It was Buck who replied to mine, not once, but TWICE. And if he's going to do that, throw insults around, and have nothing to back them up but a bunch of poorly constructed arguments lacking in both logic and facts, then I have every right to refute his arguments in detail and shut him down."

This is a public news site that accepts comments to news items. You had to expect that someone might respond to your comments, the same way I expect people to respond to mine. You didn't "shut me down" I apologized when you complained that I was wasting your time. ,if you want to have a detailed discussion, start a thread on a forum somewhere, I’d be happy to oblige your opinion.

When did I insult you? I see you participating in personal attacks, but I 'impugned" you with arguments?

"... uninvited idiot how wrong he is so he'll shut up and stop insulting and impugning me with arguments ..."

I "impugned" you? When you made it clear that you didn't want me "dragging" you into my post(s).

You may not like my opinion, the same way I may not like yours, The difference is that I understand we are both entitled to them AND when we post a comment on a public internet site, will be open to comments/questions/critiques and even, personal attacks (as you have seen fit to do to me).

Have a nice day.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 09/14/07 07:44:25

I think anonymous.space is the only poster in this whole thread who actually had clear arguments with detailed explanations that made sense. I may not agree with everything he or she wrote. But at least it was cogent, on point, and carried some technical details.

I also agree that Buck was intrusive and rude with anonymous.space to begin with. Buck got exactly what he deserved. For Ed and Number 2 to compound the problem with more insulting remarks says something poor about the quality of posters here. It would be nice if Buck or Ed could actually reply with some arguments to back up their cases for once instead of juvenile taunts.

Time to grow up, boys.

Posted by Joe Blow at 09/14/07 12:39:05

Joe...are you his big brother or something.
wow! you guys are soft.
First of all re-read these comments.
Juvenile well I can't speak for number2 but I would call it targeted communication.
I see this as selective memory.
The statement :"You're joking right?"
how is that is intrusive?

Suck it up.
People once in a while are going to disagree with you.
Look, what I read here was a several posters including anonymous.space become totally rabid the minute they heard Buck criticizing XP2 and the bootlicking praise.

I think Buck made it this is pretty simple

"if you want to have a detailed discussion, start a thread on a forum somewhere, I’d be happy to oblige your opinion."

As for me well I knocked the conversation down a few notches of maturity once I realised the age group I was dealing with.

Stiff upper lip! it is a tough world out there. I have reached my tolerance for the mollycoddled types.

Posted by Ed at 09/14/07 13:38:03

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me