Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Landing a Spacecraft with Engines Blazing

This year's Lunar Lander Challenge could provide the innovative approach that makes space tourism a reality.

By David Chandler

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Staying put: Armadillo's craft, called Pixel (above), hovers in midair during a test flight. The vehicle’s design features two spherical aluminum tanks for the rocket's ethanol fuel, and two more for its liquid-oxygen oxidizer.
Credit: Armadillo Aerospace
Multimedia
•  Watch Pixel hover in midair then explode during a tethered test flight.
•  A four-camera video shows one of Pixel's competition flights.

In late October, a flurry of rockets will light up the skies in New Mexico as they compete in the Northrup Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.

NASA hopes that technologies developed by the privately funded, competing companies will provide the basis for new systems. Ideally, the systems will be used for routine lunar trips to the moon that the agency wants to begin making, starting about a decade from now.

To win a prize, a craft must take off, ascend at least 50 meters, hover in place, and land, tail down, on a designated spot using rocket power. It must then repeat the sequence in reverse, all within two and a half hours. There are two top prizes: one involves hovering for 90 seconds, and the other requires a full 180 seconds of hang time. All vehicles must be created without government funding.

The odds-on favorite to win both top prizes this year is the team that was the only contender last year: Armadillo Aerospace, of Dallas, a company founded by video-game creator John Carmack. The team has already met all the requirements needed to win during test flights this year with its prototype vehicle, called Pixel.

But that's still no guarantee of success--as the company demonstrated all too vividly late last month. A twin of Pixel, called Texel, was being put through a test flight to try out some new software when the engine-cutoff system malfunctioned during its landing, sending the vehicle soaring upward again. The test flight ended in a fireball, and flames destroyed the vehicle beyond repair. Still, the company decided to speed up construction of its next-phase Module 1 craft, and it will enter vehicles in each of the challenge's two levels.

Seven other teams are planning to compete for the prize money, although none is quite as far along as Armadillo. Some of them, like Armadillo, see the prize as just a stepping-stone on the road toward developing practical suborbital rockets--or even orbital craft--to meet an expected demand for space-tourism flights. Others are operating on a shoestring, competing for the sheer thrill of it.

For NASA, the contest is not so much about developing an actual vehicle that could fly on the moon--none of the vehicles competing are capable of that--but about building up ideas and expertise that will eventually lead to such vehicles. "They've taken an area of technology where there was essentially no activity and made it a real hotbed of activity," says Will Pomerantz, director of space projects for the X-Prize Foundation, which is cosponsoring the event. The teams have already spent millions of dollars in developing their craft, "and NASA has not yet paid out a single dollar," Pomerantz says.

So when the time comes to design the vehicles that really will fly on the moon, "we'll have a wealth of people who have experience" in the needed technologies.

Powered landings will be essential on the airless moon, where parachutes, aerobraking, and wings are not an option for slowing down the craft. But even for use on Earth, this approach has advantages. Slowing the descent by rocket power instead of by friction--the method used by all existing manned rockets--can drastically reduce the need for heat shields, such as the space shuttle's brittle and vulnerable thermal tiles.

The contest will be held at New Mexico's Holliman Air Force Base, which is near the state's planned spaceport. That port will ultimately house billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. Construction is slated to start next year, and Branson hopes to begin offering tourist rides to space there in 2009. Virgin's suborbital rockets, unlike those at the lunar challenge, will be taking off and landing horizontally, from an ordinary runway.

The winners of the Lunar Lander Challenge may have a chance to set their sights even higher. This Thursday, the X Prize Foundation, which sponsored the $10 million prize that led to the flight of SpaceShipOne three years ago, announced a new $30 million Google Lunar X Prize. The prize will be awarded to the first company that can send an unmanned rover to the moon, traverse 500 meters, and send back images to Earth, with no more than 10 percent government funding, by 2012. That's six years before NASA plans a return to the moon.

Comments

  • FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
    Gaetano Marano on 09/13/2007 at 1:02 AM
    Posts:
    71
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    .

    the Lunar Lander Challenge actually is funny and interesting but completely useless to build a REAL lunar lander

    first of all, it can't be called "Lunar Lander Challenge" but "EARTH Lander Challenge" since ALL research and ALL data gathered from these experiment are just earth-related

    the engine, the electronics, the thrust, the payload, the attidude systems and EVERYTHING made for that landers are developed for an EARTH flight

    the Moon has 1/6 the earth gravity and no atmosphere, so, all developement made for these "earth landers" should be re-developed, re-studied, re-calculated, re-tested, etc. for the Moon

    also, a small company can't build a REAL (big, complex, reliable and MANNED) lunar lander without having funds comparable with those spent for the LEM or that will be spent for the new LSAM (both in the order of several billion$$$)

    Northrup Grumman has built the LEM and (probably) will win the NASA contract to build the LSAM, so, a competition between some "earth landers toys" can't add nothing to their experience in the (real) lunar landers' field ...it's just a good PR idea... :)

    about rocket engines... thanks to a new discovery it seems they could work with SALT water propellent burned by RF waves:

    http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/007saltrocket.html

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
      a_merks on 09/13/2007 at 3:50 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Actually, a quote from the X-prize website : "The hover times are calculated so that the Level 2 mission closely simulates the power needed to perform the real lunar mission"

      With only a few changes the vehicles that can win the challenge they could also perform a landing on the moon! And if they have enough payload capacity they could land a man on the moon. I know of a couple of participants that have (or are developping) a vehicle with enough payload capacity.

      The engine doesn't have to be changed to be used for a moonlanding. However an adapted nozzle shape would increase efficiency. The electronics do not have to be changed at all. Payload for the lunar lander challenge versus real moon landing are approximately the same. (See quote above.)

      This demonstrates that a small company CAN BUILD a real lunar lander for only a few millions versus billions!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
        Gaetano Marano on 09/13/2007 at 4:18 AM
        Posts:
        71
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        .

        you're a true optimist... :)

        do you really think that NASA will award the LSAM contract to Armadillo or SpaceX rather than Boeing or Northrop Grumman?

        do you really think that Northrop Grumman is paying money for a prize just to find a competitor that could win "his" LSAM contract?

        do you really think that with "a few changes" that lander toys can land on the moon?

        do you really think that Armadillo or another alt.space company can build the LSAM with a few million$ of investment?

        well, you're a true optimist... :) ...indeed

        .
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
          SirLanse on 09/13/2007 at 8:54 AM
          Posts:
          35
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          The goal is to get a base of people who have some experience in this area.  When the time comes, some group will get a bit of prize money.
          Then the best a brightest from all the competitors will be hired by NASA to do the real work.  If there were only a dozen grad students looking at lunar landings, they would get the jobs period.  If they can get several hundred people involved, they have the pick of them for the jobs.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
      Mike_Buckley on 09/13/2007 at 1:01 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Hmmm.  A rocket using water as the propulsion medium is interesting, but ... The largest portion of the "global warming" gases (by far) is water vapor.  Oh well, what is a little bit more of the "global warming" gases going to hurt.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
      alrefaee on 09/13/2007 at 2:09 PM
      Posts:
      2
      I read these inflammatory "REJECT this notion b/c it's too good to be true idea" and I realize how short-sighted one can be.

      Not only is there benefit in the suggestion that you can attract more minds to the frey and pick from the best, as another writer suggests, but in addition, the fact that you can build something that is cheaper has been scoffed at by hundreds of thousands like you before.

      Many examples in humanity's fateful history have proven that you can create a DISRUPTIVE technology and make it cheaper or better along a different cost/maturity/quality curve when others thought it was not possible.

      As such, the folks at Northrup are doing nothing more than what GM and other car makers did to many cell fuel makers: Buy out ingenuity so it doesn't hurt them out of left field - then put them to bed or to an alternate use at some other point in time.

      As another example, GM and other car makers are complaining and suing Vermont and California about emission standards. Meanwhile, China (the country that's supposedly so polluted) has better emissions standards than California TODAY and they're meeting them consistently - beating out 36MPG.

      It is quite possible to build adaptive cheap LUNAR landers - and why can I say this - b/c I learned about making adjustments in real time from real life experience ON BOARD the space shuttle.

      I personally put together experiments for STS-77 and STS-78. I learned from STS-77 that creating an adaptive solution is the most cost effective way to bring back results and respond to findings in real time (it was a requirement for the speech recognition for the space arm). Thus, my experiment on STS-78 had to incorporate such a requirement.

      The supposed "EARTH LANDER" is far more complex as algorithms go than the "Lunar lander". So, with a few adaptive algorithms, the Earth lander, can EASILY become a lunar Lander. I mean, this is REALLY EASY.

      There is no optimism here - just the reality of entrepreneurship, which is best defined by someone who does their math, understands what they're up against, then realizes that they can't calculate to address every problem they can't see (and won't see). They realize they'll just figure out the rest as they go along by being best prepared.

      NASA was built on these notions - whereas if our ability to solve problems rested with arm-chair scholars, who scoff at problems and only embark on addressing one after they've calculated their way to a solution, there'd be no innovation.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
        dnwdfw on 09/13/2007 at 10:00 PM
        Posts:
        10
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        I agree. Nay-saying is easy to do and popular, but does little to improve the human condition. We were meant to explore - it's in our DNA. Those who would rather criticize from a distance instead of supporting or helping are just denying the historical record. Where would we all be if there'd been no risk-takers like the Wrights, Robert Goddard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong?

        Progress is usually a bumpy road. That's no reason to pretend the destination is unimportant. Thank you Google for putting your $$ where it matters!
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
      Em on 09/13/2007 at 5:55 PM
      Posts:
      10
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      how is this project and all the other burning money projects fitting in with the melting ice in Antarctica? (see two articles down the list in this issue of TR)
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: FUNNY but USELESS to develop REAL Lunar Landers >>>
      urian1975 on 09/14/2007 at 11:07 AM
      Posts:
      16
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      Why must the development cost billions of $$$ to be possible....just because the government pays $75.00 for a hammer a $500.00 for a toilet seat doesn't mean that an actual private development cant be intelligent enough to make it for less.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • >>> Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! >>>
    Gaetano Marano on 09/13/2007 at 10:54 PM
    Posts:
    71
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    .
    .

    Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!!

    http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

    PS - I've not posted this in my previous comments since my blog's article was not ready to publish

    .
    .
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • We need some serious break from past
    holoman on 09/14/2007 at 11:28 AM
    Posts:
    12
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    I know the stuff we are used to seeing seems the
    glorius end but we need to start thinking outside the box considering and proofing new ideas no matter how extreme they seem at the time.

    here's one,

    http://nlspropulsion.net
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Powered landings on other planets
    lowilliams on 09/14/2007 at 4:17 PM
    Posts:
    17
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    In 1971 I worked for Martin Marietta, now part of Lockheed Martin. Martin Marietta had the contract to develop and produce the Viking Mars landers. Both landers made powered landings on Mars in 1976.  In 1971 I helped develop the ultra pure hydrazine that was used for the powered landings of the Vikings on the surface of Mars. At that time commercial hydrazine had 5000 part per million analine, a hydrocarbon.  The fear was that this much hydrocarbon contamination would compromise the life detection experiments.  We suceeded in reducing the analine content to less tha one part per million. 

    My memmory tells me the powered lander could compensate for a 100 mph side velocity if it landed on a windy day on Mars  
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology