Five years ago, one of the then-active Google Lunar X PRIZE teams quietly signed off, withdrew from the competition, and ceased operations. At the time, it was arguably considered the team to beat in the quest for the prize. This article summarizes that team’s story and highlights a novel advancement in lander architecture derived from this short-lived yet very effective effort.
A long wait
This story starts fifty years ago at Hughes Aircraft Company in Southern California (Culver City), where Dr. Harold A. Rosen, a 37-year-old experienced and clever electrical engineer and radar expert, was leading a small team of engineers putting together what became the first successful series of geosynchronous communications satellites, Syncom. A few years prior, Rosen floated the idea to Hughes management of designing and launching a small, simple spinning satellite to GEO as part of the US response to the USSR’s 1957 Sputniklaunch. This project would also serve as a kick-start toward the vision of global GEO satellite connectivity first articulated by Arthur C. Clarke in his seminal 1945 Wireless World article.
Harold Rosen (at right) with Hughes colleague Tom Hudspeth displaying a full-scale model of their proposed geostationary satellite on the observation deck of the Eiffel Tower during the 1961 Paris Air Show. Local media claimed that “this is the highest that satellite will ever get.” (credit: Boeing Satellite Systems)
Syncom 1 was launched in February of 1963 and achieved the desired orbit, but suffered an immediate electrical failure. Five months later, Syncom 2 was successfully launched and began operating nominally. Syncom 3 repeated the achievement a year later.1
|“That design was so big and clunky, and so expensive,” Rosen said of Surveyor. “I knew back then that there was a much more elegant and cost-effective way to land.”
During 1962–1963, while Rosen and his team were immersed in their Syncom work, Hughes was bidding to be the prime contractor for NASA’s planned series of robotic lunar landers, Surveyor. The Caltech/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory had already developed a notional design for the lander and was looking to the emergent US space industry to complete the detailed design and then build the spacecraft.
Rosen was asked to peer review his firm’s proposal, and came away unimpressed. “That design was so big and clunky, and so expensive,” he recounted some 45 years later. “I knew back then that there was a much more elegant and cost-effective way to land.”
But at Hughes, Rosen never got a chance to try out his lander concept. He urged his management to counter-propose to JPL an alternative lander concept, which he was ultimately allowed to do. He prepared a proposal and pitched it to JPL, but got a lackluster response from those managing the Surveyor program. So Rosen let it slide and focused onSyncom—and other things.
Buoyed by his credibility earned from the Syncom successes, Rosen stayed at Hughes for 30 more years, leading and growing an innovative spacecraft systems team which, by the mid-1980s, dominated the global commercial communications satellite industry. Along the way, as VP and CTO of Hughes’ Space and Communications Group, Rosen became legendary as “father of the geostationary communications satellite,” as a technical innovator with more than 75 patents, and recipient of most major global accolades in the space and technology arenas, including the US National Medal of Technology.2
After retiring from Hughes (now Boeing Satellite Systems in El Segundo) in his 60s, Rosen started Rosen Motors with his accomplished brother Ben Rosen (of Compaq Computer and venture-capital fame), which by the late 1990s had successfully road tested the first gas turbine-powered car with flywheel-augmented drive train and regenerative braking system. After this venture, well into his 70s and still very active mentally and physically, Rosen continued strategic consulting with Boeing Satellite Systems while noodling alternative energy concepts in his spare time.
Entering the competition
With much fanfare, the $30-million Google Lunar X PRIZE (GLXP) was announced in downtown Los Angeles in September, 2007 (see “Google’s moonshot”, The Space Review, September 17, 2007). Team Odyssey Moon, formed and led by Bob Richards, a long-time collaborator of X PRIZE founder Peter Diamandis, concurrently announced that it was going to compete for the prize.3
Rosen’s wife, Deborah Castleman, also an experienced space systems engineer/manager, brought the GLXP to Rosen’s attention, now in his early 80s and enjoying semi-retirement in Santa Monica. Still energetic and sharp as a whip, he weighed in: “Finally, I get to try out my lander idea!”
One of Rosen’s favorite activities while enjoying semi-retirement in Santa Monica. He started his Google Lunar X PRIZE team at age 82. (credit: Ning Ridenoure)
Rosen and Castleman both enjoyed stellar space-technology track records over decades, were well-connected, and had a loyal following, especially in Southern California. They quickly assessed the GLXP competition rules and formed a small technical team with a handful of trusted associates (including Rosen’s son and grandson) to flesh out how Rosen’s lander concept might apply to the competition.
After a series of ad hoc meetings and phone calls, they registered the team into the competition as a stealth team (known only to the X PRIZE Foundation): the Santa Monica Selene Group. Rosen was named Team Leader and Castleman Associate Team leader.
In a later blog posting at the team’s GLXP website4, Castleman summarized the overarching goal of the team:
“[We] registered our team to compete for the Google Lunar X PRIZE to demonstrate that a low-cost space mission to the Moon could be accomplished and could lead to lowering the cost of some future robotic missions to planetary moons. Plus, we intended to have fun!”
Rosen’s original GLXP team in when first registered as the Santa Monica Selene Group. Left to right: Max Johnson, Dorian Challoner, Susan Sloan, John Smay, Deborah Castleman Harold Rosen, Brian Bliss, Robert Rosen, Josh Rosen. Everyone except the two high school students (one on each end) were current or past employees at Hughes Space & Communications. (credit: Deborah Castleman, December 2007)
|Individually, all of the technical team had worked from years to decades at Hughes Space and Communications, and combined their names appear on 130 space-related patents. This small group had over 400 years of space industry experience.
Returning compelling video from the landing and surface operations mission phases—“Mooncasts” in GLXP parlance—is a key requirement for winning the prize. As the world-leading supplier of rugged video systems for use on board rockets and spacecraft, the firm I was leading at that time, Ecliptic Enterprises Corporation, with its RocketCam product family, got peppered with calls from GLXP teams starting the day after the prize announcement.
Rather than commit to any particular team or teams, I decided to register Ecliptic as a stealth team as well, figuring that eventually we’d be sitting at the table with all teams and could pick our own winners to partner with. I submitted our registration just before the deadline at the end of 2007.
What I didn’t know at that time was that for his team entry Rosen had recently recruited a former Hughes engineer/manager to be his Project Manager: Ron Symmes. Symmes had spent much of his career at Hughes (and then Boeing), ultimately retiring as an Executive VP in charge of their billion-dollar-per-year commercial satellite business. He’s credited as the brainchild of Hughes’ most popular satellite model, the HS-601. He was one of the first engineers I had met when first starting my career (at Hughes Space and Communications), and for several years he had been a strategic advisor to Ecliptic.
In mid-January 2008, Symmes called me and said he was working on a space project that needed an onboard video system. I pressed him for some details and he replied, “Have you ever heard of the Google Lunar X PRIZE?”
“Sure,” I said. “In fact, Ecliptic is registered as a stealth team.”
“Oh… really?” Ron chuckled. “So is the team that I’m on!”
This exchange started an interesting unpeeling of mutual non-disclosure agreements over a day or two until it was clear what was going on with both teams. Once I realized that Symmes was on a crack team led by the legendary Rosen I was intrigued, and once I got an inkling of Rosen’s new lander concept from a simple home-made video5, I was hooked.
After an introductory meeting with Rosen and his expanding team, I was invited in late January 2008 to be Deputy Project Manager—a position I enthusiastically accepted. I also withdrew Ecliptic’s stealth registration after explaining the situation to the X PRIZE Foundation.
By early 2008, Rosen’s all-volunteer team consisted of eleven experienced space systems, avionics, and propulsion engineers; two grad students; a practicing artist; and two high school students.
Individually, all of the technical team had worked from years to decades at Hughes Space and Communications in El Segundo, and combined their names appear on 130 space-related patents, many of them fundamental patents. This small group had over 400 years of space industry experience and had actively contributed to over 500 actual space missions. (See the full team bios here.)
After assessing the team’s composition, likely partners needed to win the prize and cultural heritage of the group—ex-Hughes, most with one or more college degrees from Caltech, UCLA and/or USC—I suggested to Rosen and Castleman that the team’s name be changed to Southern California Selene Group. They concurred, so we became SCSG instead of SMSG.
By early February, team activity ramped up on all fronts in anticipation of a big event planned for February 21st at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California: the public announcement of all registered teams. The SCSG mission design and spacecraft system design were refined, potential suppliers and partners visited, photos and videos taken and edited, website entries posted, team background info written, handouts prepared, and travel and hotel reservations made. It was a busy time.
The full team typically met on Saturdays at the Rosen-Castleman home in Santa Monica, with splinter meetings during the week at various favorite restaurants and haunts in the El Segundo area. Since most of the team members had worked together before—some on many dozens of missions—the inherent effectiveness and productivity of the team was palpable. I witnessed more technical output during a single week from this small team than other larger teams I have been involved with could generate in a month.
A typical SCSG team meeting at the Rosen-Castleman home in Santa Monica, mostly conducted with paper, pencil and brains. (credit: Josh Rosen, March 2008)
A novel lander concept
Starting with the Syncom series in the early 1960s at Hughes, Rosen and his technical staff pioneered the science, engineering and art of spinning satellites, first with increasing capable “solid spinners” where the entire satellite spins like a gyroscope, and, by the late 1960s, “dual-spin” designs, where part of the spacecraft spins and another part is maintained in a “despun” state. In a dual-spun design, the two sections are connected via an integrated mechanical bearing/electric spin-rate control motor (rotor controller); the assembly also allows for the transfer of power and signals across the spun-despun interface.
Both spacecraft architectures are quite scalable in size and capability, and for nearly forty years Hughes successfully developed and launched dozens of variations and hundreds of individual satellites, dominating the industry with proposal win rates often in the 60–80% range.
“If it spins, it wins!” was one of Rosen’s favorite proclamations during those heady years.
The spinning satellite heritage pioneered by Rosen at team at Hughes during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. (The oddball is the Surveyor lunar lander, a JPL design built by Hughes for NASA.) Spinning satellite designs captured early dominance in the commercial space arena because their various subsystems were inherently simple, mass-efficient and scalable. Incremental changes in size and functionality developed over nearly four decades and applied to over 130 missions clearly demonstrated the versatility of the spinning architecture. (credit: Hughes Space and Communications, 1985)
In a dual-spin satellite, typically the telecommunications payload electronics and antennas are on the despun side, while power, propulsion and primary structure are on the spun side. Shown here is the layout for one of the largest dual-spinners produced by Hughes, Leasat (also called Syncom 4), five of which were launched and deployed by the Space Shuttle. (credit: Hughes Space and Communications, 1985)
The lander idea that had been in Rosen’s head since the early 1960s but had never been put into practice was, in Rosen’s words, “an elegantly simple design that can be implemented quickly and inexpensively”: a spinning lander.
The spinning lander concept starts with a classic dual-spin spacecraft architecture, where the spinning module provides robust gyroscopic attitude stability, a relatively benign thermal environment (by evenly distributing heat loads) and centripetal acceleration (for effective propellant settling and flow control), connected to the despun module via the bearing/rotor assembly. The despun module typically hosts the telecommunications payloads and related antennas.
What converts this proven, robust, scalable architecture to a lander is the addition of landing legs to the despun section, plus some sort of landing radar (or equivalent) and mission-specific equipment such as science instruments, sensors, and technology or commercial payloads.
Rosen’s spinning lander concept. (credit: SCSG, 2008)
Most core spacecraft subsystems needed for a spinning lander—power, telemetry and command, telecommunications, attitude control, despun and spun module control, propulsion, etc.—are nearly identical to those designed into over a hundred successful dual-spin spacecraft missions conducted from 1969 through 2003. For nearly 40 years, Rosen and team developed a variety of technologies and design techniques that demonstrated the scalability of the basic architecture and subsystem capabilities, and compatibility with most available launch options. These innovations helped to accelerate progress in the burgeoning geostationary telecommunications satellite market. Several solar system-exploration spacecraft also employed the dual-spin architecture: Pioneer Venus Orbiter andMultiprobe (two spacecraft, both launched 1978), Sakigaki, Suisei, and Giotto (Halley flyby spacecraft, 1985) and Galileo (Jupiter orbiter, 1989).
|The lander idea that had been in Rosen’s head since the early 1960s but had never been put into practice was, in Rosen’s words, “an elegantly simple design that can be implemented quickly and inexpensively”: a spinning lander.
For venturing beyond the GEO arc to the Moon and beyond, spinning lander operations during launch, Earth escape, cruise, and target approach are essentially the same as any typical dual-spin mission to GEO. Control of spacecraft velocity, spin rate, and attitude is accomplished via relatively simple and independent sets of thrusters: axial (parallel to spin axis), radial (normal to spin axis), and tangential (to spinning section rim). In free space, bulk spin rate of the spacecraft is controlled with the tangential thrusters, while relative spin rate and azimuth phase control between the despun and spun sections is accomplished with the bearing/rotor assembly, which passes power and signals across the interface via a series of slip rings. Telecom antennas, scaled to meet mission objectives, can be mounted to both sections, though the higher gain antenna(s) are almost always on the despun section.
During the terminal landing phase, the spinning portion of the lander continues to spin until touchdown, providing significant gyroscopic stability to the entire landed system. Before touchdown the despun section (with legs) is set to zero spin, allowing the legs to perform much like any typical set of lander legs does during landing. Importantly, because of its gyro stiffness, this system essentially can’t tip over during landing, but will rather “bounce” or “stick” depending on the leg system design.
Depending on mission goals, once on the surface the spacecraft’s spinning section can either be stopped or left to spin at any desired rate via the rotor controller. In the spinning mode, the entire lander becomes an excellent hopper as well, providing extended range and coverage options, onboard propellant permitting. Selected instruments on the despun section can be controlled independently in azimuth and elevation during all mission phases using typical pan-tilt assemblies. Instruments and components on the spun side can be positioned in azimuth by rotation of the entire spun module.
The mass-efficient, cost-effective spinning lander system designs can, for relatively low total mission costs, address mission objectives for planetary exploration, resource utilization, and commercialization at various solar system destinations. Solar system mission capability is enabled primarily by how much onboard delta-V capability is incorporated (via some combination of liquid monopropellant, bipropellant, and/or solid kick motor systems) and available power (via spun- and despun-mounted solar arrays or radioisotope-based power generators).
The Spirit of Southern California
In a nod to Charles Lindbergh and the Orteig Prize, which motivated his pioneering flight across the Atlantic and decades later also inspired the formation of the X PRIZE, the team named the proposed GLXP lunar lander The Spirit of Southern California.
Rosen in the middle of his normal Saturday ritual of summarizing the latest lander mechanical design using full-scale structural drawings hand-drawn during the previous week by SCSG’s lead structures engineer, Al Wittmann. (credit: Rex Ridenoure, January 2008)
With various “going public” deadlines looming in mid-February, the team summarized the then-current lander mission and system design for a required posting at the GLXP website and hard-copy handouts planned for the Google HQ event. (This summary still appears at the SCSG’s team website; see the previous link to the team bios.) The baseline design at that time involved a SpaceX Falcon 1e launch, two ATK-supplied solid rocket motor kick stages (a STAR 30 and STAR 17), and an all-bipropellant liquid propulsion system on the lander itself.
|The total mission cost—for everything—was announced in a team blog post a couple of weeks after the Google event: $20 million, and about two years of schedule.
The team announcement event at Google on February 21st went well, with ten teams showing a public face. Each team had a spokesperson who summarized the team and their conceptual approach to winning the prize. After this event it was clear to the SCSG team (and from what we heard later, several other teams) that the SCSG entry was a strong contender, as measured by the aggregate experience brought to the table by the individual team members, relatively mature end-to-end mission and spacecraft design6, relative simplicity of the lander concept and good sense for how the mission would be conducted operationally.
The spinning lander design fielded by SCSG was unique, and so similar to what the team’s members had designed, built, launched, and operated before (hundreds of times) that as a team we had a good feel for what the end-to-end mission effort would cost, especially after getting fresh pricing data from most key suppliers.
The total mission cost—for everything—was announced in a team blog post a couple of weeks after the Google event: $20 million, and about two years of schedule.
The Spirit of Southern California (left) vs. Surveyor (2nd from left) and other lunar systems, as unveiled at the Google HQ event. (credit: SCSG, February 2008)
The mission and system design at the time of the Google event was pretty good, but improved Falcon 1e launch performance estimates provided by SpaceX in April 2008, subsequently combined with very clever systems engineering by the SCSG team, the lander evolved to an even simpler and more elegant design by the end of May 2008.
Rosen stepping the SCSG team through another design trade following the team’s public announcement at Google HQ. The March-May 2008 period was a very productive time for the team. (credit: Rex Ridenoure, March 2008)
During this time, a few additional team members came onboard, including a very interested and enthusiastic six-year-old boy referred to us by the X PRIZE Foundation (at that time also based in Santa Monica). He was an instant hit with the team and, with his mother’s permission, anointed team “mascot.”
SCSG team “mascot” Lucas gets feedback from Rosen on one of his lunar rover designs. (credit: Rex Ridenoure, April 2008)
Briefly, this was the final SCSG plan for winning the prize: A Falcon 1e launch placed the all-bipropropellant lander spacecraft with an attached ATK-supplied STAR 30 solid-motor kick stage into a 200-kilometer altitude Earth orbit. The lander’s spinning section included the solar arrays; biprop propulsion system; Sun and Moon sensors for attitude determination; a single, relatively simple landing radar; telemetry and communication transmitters; a command receiver; antennas; and a control processor. The despun section contained the landing gear, structural closeouts, and a microwave-transparent mast that surrounded the antennas and supported a separately rotatable camera assembly at the top.
After the STAR 30 translunar injection burn, the approximately 240-kilogram lander—about 50 kilograms of dry mass and the rest bipropellants, providing an ~80% propellant mass fraction allowing for more than 4.5 kilometers/second delta-V capability—spun at 100 rpm in ecliptic normal attitude during its 90-hour cruise to the Moon, targeting a landing shortly after local lunar sunrise near 70 degrees W, 0 degrees N.
The landing site chosen by Rosen resulted in a nearly vertical approach angle, requiring a negligible change in spin-axis attitude during the descent. This choice of landing site also permitted the use of the transfer orbit communications antenna system for lunar operations. (In an elegant blending of old and new, this antenna design was identical that used for Syncom in the early 1960s.)
|The resulting SCSG lander-hopper design was dramatically smaller and lighter than theSurveyor landers launched over forty years before. And it could hop like a lunatic jumping spider.
The GLXP rules offer a bonus prize of $1 million for any team which can also image an existing artifact on the Moon with their lander. I was curious whether anything of interest might be near our intended landing site, and discovered after a quick peek at a National Geographic map of the Moon that the very first lunar lander, the USSR’s Luna 9, also landed at this location, for pretty much the same reasons Rosen independently employed to justify the SCSG team’s choice. Great minds think alike…
Ridenoure indicating SCSG’s planned landing site: the same place Luna 9 landed decades before. (credit: Rex Ridenoure, May 2009)
Orbit corrections during cruise consumed about 20 kilograms of bipropellant. At a lunar altitude of several hundred kilometers, with an approach speed of approximately 2.5 kilometers/second, the now ~220-kilogram lander began its descent phase using its large axial thruster for braking and small (pulsed) axial thrusters for attitude control.
The landing radar, aimed 20 degrees away from the spin axis, measured altitude and vector velocity relative to the Moon, starting at an altitude of about 50 kilometers. Horizontal velocity errors were driven to zero by pulsing the radial thrusters. The axial thrusters, through an appropriate descent velocity-versus-altitude profile, controlled the lander to a soft landing. At about 1 meter above the surface, the thrusters were turned off and the ensuing free fall was stabilized by the inherent gyro stiffness of the spacecraft and cushioned by the flexible landing legs. After a nominal landing, at least 30 kilograms of bipropellant remained for hopping, enabling a potential hopping range of about 5 kilometers (vs. the GLXP-required 0.5 kilometers).
To meet the all GLXP Mooncast requirements, a HD camera system designed from ruggedized commercially available components was mounted at the top of the antenna mast. It enabled views looking downward to the top of the lander and nearby lunar surface as well as outward to the distant lunar horizon. The camera itself stared in a generally upward orientation at a tiltable mirror that provided the required elevation viewing range. The pan requirement was met by rotating the camera/mirror assembly around the mast axis.
For comparison, the resulting SCSG lander-hopper design was dramatically smaller and lighter (about one sixth the mass) than the Surveyor landers launched over forty years before.
And it could hop like a lunatic jumping spider.
With the mission and spacecraft design converged to a comfortable baseline by mid May, the SCSG team put more effort into understanding the source of supply for the various hardware elements required to execute the project: the Falcon 1e rocket; the STAR 30 kick stage; propellant tanks, thrusters, valves and lines; solar cells, electronics, and structures.
Prices from preferred suppliers were solicited and received. Spare propellant tanks destined for the salvage heap were pledged (at little or no cost to the SCSG team) by Boeing Satellite Systems. An entire floor of an El Segundo office building was pledged by another aerospace firm in exchange for quarterly strategic planning meetings with Rosen. Working SCSG team members were negotiating with their “day job” firms for possible leaves of absence—at least one quit his job—while retired members were considering coming out of retirement for an active (and hopefully brief) stint on the team. Most of the team was willing to work for no charge in exchange for a share of the $20-million first-place prize.
Then things unraveled, and in a hurry.
A GLXP “summit” was held in Strasbourg, France on May 20th. SCSG sent Castleman, who reported on the trip a few days later on the team’s blog, titling her post as “Some serious thinking at the Southern California Selene Group.” Per her blog post:
“The Team Summit turned out to be a real wakeup call. In the guidelines workshop that I attended just last Tuesday, the cumulative effect of hearing all day from [the GLXP organizers] that the ‘real purpose’ of the Google Lunar X PRIZE was to promote the so-called commercialization of space (which I took to mean highly impractical stuff like mining the moon and beaming power to the Earth, as shown in one of GLXP kickoff videos), humanity’s future in space, etc. etc., took its toll. I couldn’t help but think ‘what am I doing here?’ When I spoke to Harold about it on the phone later, he agreed—no way did he want to be involved in promoting a goal he does not believe in.”
As it turns out, neither Rosen nor his like-minded wife have ever been advocates or supporters of human space travel or visions of expansive human activity in space—government or commercial.
After another fretful day of considering their fundamental disconnect with the GLXP backers on visions of the future in space, other issues specific to the GLXP competition, rumors of the phase-out of the Falcon 1e rocket and the obvious “big elephant in the room” for all teams—funding—Castleman posted a final farewell on the SCSG blog.
Harold and Deborah were no longer having fun. The team was OUT.
The SCSG team disbanded more quickly that it formed. But the spinning lander idea did not fade away as an asterisk in some space-history book. Realizing the uniqueness of the concept, in early 2008 Rosen filed a provisional patent for the spinning lander, starting a one-year fuse until a formal patent application was due.
Symmes and I expressed interest in promoting the concept to other potential partners and customers—none related to the GLXP competition—and Rosen gladly and generously offered his support.
Just before the one-year deadline a formal and very comprehensive patent application prepared by me and Rosen’s patent attorney was filed in the U.S. and internationally, with Rosen named as the inventor. The summary of the invention reads as follows:
“The invention provides a novel, low-cost, spin-stabilized lander architecture capable (with appropriate system scaling tailored to the attributes of the target) of performing a soft-landing on a solar-system body such as Earth’s Moon, Mars, Venus, the moons of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, selected near-Earth and main-belt asteroids, comets and Kuiper belt objects and even large human-made objects, and also moving about on the surface of the target solar-system body after the initial landing in movement akin to hopping.”
A year later, in early 2010, Rosen assigned the still-pending patent over to Ecliptic Enterprises Corporation, noting that “I have already commercialized space technology that created hundreds of billions of dollars of value in the marketplace, and don’t need to do that again!”
|At age 87 Harold Rosen is still consulting, still swinging rings at Santa Monica Beach, and still innovating. And several members of the SCSG team stand ready to give Rosen’s new lander concept a spin.
As the new carrier of the spinning lander torch, in summer 2011 I started exposing the concept to an expanded audience of potential customers and users, first at the Low-Cost Planetary Missions Conference held at Applied Physics Lab in Maryland, with a very positive reception from several firms, labs and teams.7I had put a bit more substance to the concept by suggesting some design variants which would be applicable to landing on other solar system bodies, or to simply do more at the Earth’s Moon than win a prize. Subsequent public and private presentations have been made and discussions held (including one funded assessment contract), and more are planned.
Subsequent spinning lander concept studies: a Mars lander (left) and Europa lander (right). (credit: From Ref. 5; Sketches by Lance Ridenoure)
After a couple of rounds of modifications to the application, in January 2013 the US Patent and Trademark Office granted patent number 8,353,481 for a spin-stablized lander to Harold A. Rosen.8 Multiple international patents are still pending.
Meanwhile, at age 87 Harold Rosen is still consulting, still swinging rings at Santa Monica Beach, and still innovating.
And several members of the SCSG team stand ready to give Rosen’s new lander concept a spin.
1 For a summary of the Syncom program, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncom.
2 For more on Rosen, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Rosen_(electrical_engineer).
3 For background on the Google Lunar X PRIZE, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize.
4 http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/scsg. Links to Castleman’s blog posts are also on this website page.
5 This is the home-made video produced by Rosen that elegantly introduced the core idea underlying his new lander concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1lMpWlHgvo.
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6_umNrO_s8. This animation sequence was first shown at the SCSG team’s public announcement at Google in February 2008. It depicts SCSG’s spinning lander concept and end-to-end mission sequence for winning the GLXP. It was produced by Josh Rosen (Rosen’s grandson) and his friend Max Johnson, both high school students on the team.
7 2011 Jun 21–24, R. Ridenoure and R. Symmes: Spinning Landers: A New Spacecraft System Architecture for Solar System Exploration; presented at Low-Cost Planetary Missions Conference #9, held at Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD.
8 See the patent details at http://tinyurl.com/me2br6e.
Rex Ridenoure was Deputy Project Manager on the SCSG GLXP effort in 2008. He is currently CEO of IZUP LLC, a consultancy focused on the intersection of space technology, beyond-GEO commercial space development, and the investor community. Starting with an undergraduate internship on the Viking Mars missions at JPL, he continued to work as a space-mission engineer on pathfinding space projects such as the earliest satellites deployed from the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Voyager/Neptune encounter, the ion-propelled Deep Space 1 mission, and numerous small satellite-based mission concepts. During 1998–2001, he was deeply involved with some of the earliest attempts to field commercial deep-space missions at Microcosm, SpaceDev, and BlastOff. In 2001 he co-founded Ecliptic Enterprises Corporation, home of the RocketCam™ onboard video system product family, serving as CEO and President through 2012. He remains an active Ecliptic Board member and co-owner. Contact Rex firstname.lastname@example.org.