What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
26 Comments
- WordsnCollision, on 10/31/2009, -7/+27Didn't NASA already win this thing 40 years ago?
- funkedup, on 11/01/2009, -1/+9Yes, but the X-Prize is intended for private companies (I'm pretty sure) to compete. It's a good incentive for them to build bigger and better equipment. I think the next great advancements in space (lunar colonization, mars exploration, europa exploration, etc) will likely come from the private sector. And if those particular explorations occur under the guise of some national space program, then the private sector is most likely going to be the one supplying all the equipment and technology.
- df12, on 11/01/2009, -4/+11Who knew, id software's John Carmack is a whiny bitch. ;)
- mmittimm, on 11/01/2009, -1/+6Here's how I see it: This shouldn't be a contest on who can make a perfect trial run, but rather who has the best design for a lander. If they succeeded the second time then that should be fine. In a real life application it's not like they're going to launch it without perfecting the design.
(Obviously it's easy to see how the other team would be upset with a million dollars at stake though.) - opticwind, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4While I see your point, it's not fair that the complaining team isn't able to make a second test run themselves do to their aviation license expiring for their vehicle.
- arunforce, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4I didn't fully read the article, but being given a second chance would make anyone a whiny bitch, especially after so much effort.
- opticwind, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4While the overall goal is to further the understanding of how these machines can and will work in future, non-mock designs, the fact that the machine malfunctioned can't just be ignored when you're judging individual projects. The technical issue should be considered part of a first run, and the second run (the one that worked) as a second.
- Sornos, on 11/01/2009, -1/+4The best design would be decided by trials. How else would you find it?
- mmittimm, on 11/01/2009, -1/+4By studying the design of the lander. Just because they ran into problems during the trial doesn't mean that those problems can't be fixed before it is put into use. If it's better in theory and just has kinks that need to be worked out, why would you use the other one just because it performed better in initial tests?
- mmittimm, on 11/01/2009, -1/+4Yeah, because once they choose a design they're going to immediately send it to space without any further changes or improvements.
It failed once, sorry, game over, it's obviously going to fail every single time no matter what anyone does.
You'd make a great engineer, buffalogums. - RogerStrong, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3Sure. But that would still make Armadillo the winner: If you look at the level 2 attempts made, problems encountered and exemptions granted, Armadillo clearly had the more reliable and dependable vehicle.
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2This isn't just a test of whether you can stay up for 180 seconds - it's a test of whether you can do it on demand, within given flight regulations, and within the contest rules.
If Armadillo were given the same exemptions and second chance, they probably would have won it last year. - Greengoo, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2I doubt the million dollars is his motivation.
- theonlywizdum, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2But it would really suck if you got to the moon, only to find out that you had no more fuel left.
- 360photo, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Was cool to watch a bunch of those vids. Just hoping I wont be told old to go to the moon when it becomes passé and cheap.
- Gogara, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2I would consider it a supporting principle, not a primary one. The issue here is that the landing technology was the technology being improved, and the competition assumes that all supporting technology is in place.
- postitnote, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2They're turning this mock lander contest into some kind of mockery.
- palehorse864, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1There's only one way to settle this, one final face off, single elimination, for all the money!
See the first entry here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLmXildv2E - Gogara, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2The issue is with the judge's call. As it stands, they both had one 'proper' run, and were judged based on that. From the sounds of the article, the complaining team WOULD have gotten another chance had their license not expired... which is out of the judge's hands.
Do you think this would have been more fair? That way, the team with the technical issue only gets one complete run, while the other gets two. - Gogara, on 11/01/2009, -1/+1If that were the point of the competition, it would be in the contest rules. Armadillo acknowledges in the complaint letter that they were within their rights to give the other team a slight extension. It's disputable only because they wanted to win on a technicality... whereas the judges just wanted to see all teams display their landing technology, not their fuel line prowess.
It's the difference between seeing a proof of concept and seeing a finished product. Here, the competition is based on the concept. Team A has a better concept, but a poorer product. Team B has a better product, but a poorer concept. Team A SHOULD win, because they are better in terms of what the competition was looking for. It would be a shame otherwise. - Gogara, on 11/01/2009, -3/+3IMO, everyone was entitled to their run... the team won because their vehicle performed better at what was being judged than the previous team, and therefore, they should win. They aren't competing over who has the best fuel system, they are competing over who can fulfill the given task the quickest and most accurately. If the team had two runs unhampered by technical issues, I can see where there would be an issue... but they only had one. Just like everyone else. Except they did better, so they win.
- buffalogums, on 11/01/2009, -3/+2Ya, for sure. No need to worry about how it plays out in practice when you can prove it in theory :) Give me the rocket that is theoretically better, not the one that actually IS better.
- zeazzz, on 11/01/2009, -4/+2Organised, lol.
- bellgong, on 11/01/2009, -3/+1I thought the x prize was about space flight, and they're only going a few meters up? And they have rapidly expiring FAA licences for this underwhelming activity? And.. it's hard??
- TwwIX, on 11/01/2009, -5/+1Wah wah!
Stick to game programming, John. It's not like you need another million in your bank account. - AlienMushroom, on 11/01/2009, -5/+1Same old rocket spitting out flames to keep things up in the air. Time for some kick-ass engine like anti-gravity etc.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is