You might want to do a bit of correcting. The articles I read on Space.com and Wired.com all said a $20M first prize (with a possible extra $5M for extras), and $5M conciliation/second prize for hitting/crashing/landing on the moon but not being able to either move or report back, for a total possible payout of $30M.

I could just drop a remote controlled car on a fake moon set and fool the general public...

This is the best news I've heard all day.

Can NASA win?

@rcarydon: Sure, if you call blowing 17 billion taxpayer dollars per year "winning".

.... I hardly think NASA is blowing our money....

@Shockage: Whose money do you think they're blowing? If you're saying you support them blowing our money, they you're free to send them a check any time you want. And if they aren't getting enough cashola from rich like-minded individuals such as yourself, they need to get creative to fund playing in space (a la Google/X-prize). Say, running lotteries where the winners get a trip in a big rocket ship. That way there's at least a CHANCE that the people paying for it will get something out of it other than velcro and memory foam pillows.

@bobdobbs: Wow $17 billion... You're right, total waste. With that kind of cash we could start another war ($13 billion) and (at $9 billion/month) run it for about 14 days. I don't understand fucktards complaining about NASA spending when no one cares that we spend $1 trillion (1000 billion) annually on our war machine. Yes, I fully understand the times we live in. But that $1 trillion figure represents 50% of the total annual military spending on this planet. Last I checked we don't own nor control half this planet. Hell, we can't even elect a leader who can complete a sentence or go a day without screwing an intern. Seems to me we're not getting our money's worth.

I say thank god for true entrepreneurs and small business. Let's support that spirit at all cost. The XPrize should be much more substantial, at least $100 million. Doesn't Google spend $1.3 million just to park -- not even operate -- a single jumbo jet?

@Evodico: Hey, douche, we're talking space exploration, but if you want to talk defense spending and ill-conceived military junkets, we can. You won't get much of an argument from me, however, other than to point out there's this little thing in the Constitution (you know, that document that says the rules the federal government plays by) about "providing for the common defense" but nothing about "playing with rockets."

@bobdobbs: Are you fucking kidding me??? What the hell do you stand for?! Just because our constitution gives some dumbass Texan the right to drop $1,000,000 bombs on other countries doesn't mean that it's money well spent.

Great Britain just bought 4 new nuclear subs, which altogether cost them about $8 billion. Do you really think that NASA is wasting money if they only get twice that to explore the UNIVERSE?! Why the hell do you think the shuttle is still flying? They don't have enough money to do ANYTHING. We put a man on the moon in the 60's in a few short years. NASA wants to accomplish this again, but they're projecting that it will take them over 10 years to do the same thing...

...take a guess why.

Like em or not, NASA and our "war machine" are what creates the drive that is exemplified by a lot of things we see on gizmodo.
Did it benefit mankind to walk around on the moon a little? I belive so, but to some it's debatable. But the incredible technological progress that came from the Apollo missions is undeniable.
Same with military spending. Tangible results are a matter of opinion to say the least, but you can bet your next trip to Europe would have been in a ship, even now, if it weren't for us finding more efficient ways of dropping bombs on others.

sorry for the lack of spell check

@bobdobbs: Oh, and I really don't think that the war we're in right now is "providing for our common defense." The only effect it's having on us Americans is getting our troops killed, and making it must more likely for American civilians to be attacked overseas.

The war sure as hell isn't helping to "Ensure Domestic Tranquility" either. The peace-time space program falls under the "Promote the General Welfare" part of the Constitution, by the way.

Looking at what the Constitution says:

1) The War on Terror is illegal. It was not a declared war. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the President being able to use the troops during peacetime (which is, technically, what it is now).

2) Funding NASA is illegal. Whether or not you think it's good is completely and utterly irrelevant. If you think the federal government should fund the sciences, then you should get your Congressman to support a Constitutional amendment authorizing the government to do this. If I don't like a certain law, I can't just ignore it - the Constitution is the law that our government has to follow. They can change it if they want, but they can't just freaking ignore it.

3) @ flskydiver: When they put the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution, it wasn't meant for things like NASA. They meant that the government should only provide the most general form of safety/welfare for the people (interstate commerce, national defense, etc.) But don't trust me, James Madison (the father of the Constitution):

With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

4) Again, you can't judge the constitutionality of something based on whether or not it's a good thing. If I think that our drug laws are stupid, I can't smoke crack and expect to not be punished. If we think certain parts of the Constitution are stupid, the government can't expand their powers without changing the law (which it has built-in provisions for).

5) The legality of it all has nothing to do with how much money is spent, just the fact that it is spent. You can't say that NASA is constitutional because we spend more money on the military. That makes no sense. (Not that anyone explicitly said that)

6) You'd not only have private companies funding space travel (Google), but states governments, too. For example, California spent a ton of money a few years ago to build a huge stem cell research center (which we're not using federal money for at the moment). Why can't states also do the same for space exploration?

@FLskydiver: Bullshit. The space program is a government boondoggle created because the Soviets flew a satellite over our country before we flew one over theirs. It was an instrument of the Cold War, which ended, oh, 16 or so years ago. In no way does it "Promote the General Welfare."

@Stang70Fastback: Hence the phrase "ill-conceived military junkets" above. Try to keep up, 'kay?

wow i'd just like to say this news is cool! space and robotics are cool, so is rocket science.

a. we never went to the moon, besides the obvious physical impossibilities(van allen radiation belt,physical/impiracle evidence,common sense)and beyond our motive at that time to go, we were simply unable and it never physically happened that is unless you were watching the tube.

b. the military/space complex of the US government has raped its poor knuckledragging masses along with a few intelligent heads for half a century by taxes and lies.

c. If we really wanted to push the space program there would be nothing in our way, but as many before me have pointed out our leaders seem to have ulterior motives that have somthing to do with faith and nuclear weapons. So YES, this is good news if you look at it in isolation, but if you look from a wider angle you would see the tragedy.

Yeah, obvious, common-sensical obstacles like the impenetrable, super death-irradiating Van Allen belts made the '60s moon missions an obvious, impossible farce perpetrated on a witless public. I mean, c'mon, it's like so obvious. It takes only common sense and a basic mastery of crop circle physics to realize this obvious conclusion, that and the aforementioned "impiracle" evidences thingies.

I'm for anything that'll get me off this dirt ball before something bad happens to it....

Really, do we really want to repeat the dinos fate?

@Mixiboi: Yeah? Where you gonna go? Like it or not, all the crap in your body is suited for exactly one environment within a few thousand light-years of your sofa. You oughta enjoy it while it lasts, because you, me, and all the NASA lackys sucking on the taxpayer teat are cosmic toast.

@foinsap:

naw, you really just need a brain and two eyes, oh and they work best if they are open all the way at all times! GL go getum!

@Mixiboi:
I'm pretty sure we got the meteor ELE under wraps, this isn't 1996 and this isn't deep impact. we have defense systems in place that safeguard us from 99% of the shit around us. we have people that monitor and study the rocks in our backyard. that isn't the drive behind the space programs at all, not for nasa atleast(dark military purpose)and i dont think the people involved in the X price have a dark military purpose, well for one because they choose to do their business infront of everyone so there is complete transparency, two because they are funded by companies not affiliated directly with goverment. our drive for space should be the same as our drive for science, that of discovery and knowledge.

How can so many Giz readers trash NASA when they are responsible for putting up so many of those satellites that provide us with GPS, cellular connections, radio, TV, etc...?

Back to the original post... Google Moon: Street View?

@Stang70Fastback:

Maybe because those satelites that provide us with gps,cellular connections,radio,tv also provide the military 10X more. look at who gets the HUGE budget for those things and who has the bleeding-edge technology that gives them the ability to launch a misile @ a kangaroo in austrailia in 15 mins if they want. deadly accurate lazer guided misiles and crystal clear satalite observation are the reason you have those WONDERFULL things like TV and radio! wake up and realise you are just piggybacking the military and you are not the reason why we have those things, you have them so you can feel like it was made just for us so you will purchase it and continue to fund the government/military blindly BUT faithfull, because you got a new iphone and gps in ur car.
man maybe some of you just havent watched Zeitgeist. i suggest you search it @ google.

YOU ARE NOT THE WARM CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE THE WHOLE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND, YOU ARE THE ALL SINGING ALL DANCING CRAP.or somthing to that extent.

@Sublimenaltouches
America definitely went to the moon; you're retarded for saying otherwise. Automated Soviet mssions brought back samples from the moon and they were compared with sample brought back from Apollo, perfect match! Who would've thought! I'm Russian and I damn sure wish it was fake, but I try to see the truth, not what I want to see.

As for the whole trashing NASA thing, they deserve to be trashed. While they were tinkering around with the shuttle, Russia launched up the world's first modular station and began serious research into the long-term effects of zero-G on the human body, as well as scientific experiments like crystal growth in microgravity.

Total cost of Mir from start to finish, including supply launches and all that over its 15 year lifespan: $4.3 Billion (enough for almost 9 shuttle launches, each lasting about two weeks making it a total time of less than 5 months). Total cost of ISS to-date: several tens of billion dollars and its not even finished. Thank you American engineering! (Well, actually, since the early days of NASA were led by captured Nazi scientists, thank you German engineering that America took credit for!)

@ntrgc89: I'm sure your truth-seeking attitude led you to believe that just because we got rocks from the moon that means we have actually been there. but that doesnt require a human mission. DURRRRRRR RETARD OMG! LIKE OMG IM SO AWSOME!!! GAH!!

infact you make my point for me by pointing out the russians even have rocks lol, we can have rocks from somewhere we have never been, its called robitics dumbass.

If you really want truth, go search moon hoax on youtube and watch maybe 30 mins of footage of the fellas up in space masking off the window to make it look as if they are halfway to the moon when they are actually orbiting. perhaps you would also like to look at some of the pictures they brought back laced with physical impossibilities. i know its kind of hard but you REALLY need to study what you claim is bullshit BEFORE you claim it.

also i would have liked to not have to mention all of these things because they are simple to find and im not here to present a case, i did not want to bombard people with evidence and say SEE! i just wanted to state the facts but i guess that is like the moon landing, impossible!

@SUBLIMENALTOUCHES:

Anyone who get's their "proof" off of youtube has serious issues. You are here telling others to seak out the truth themselves, when you haven't actually done it. A simple google search for Moon Hoax will come up with countless numbers of sites that prove every supposed impossibility bullshit. I looked at the first three or four sites, and they all prove scientifically THAT WE DID LAND ON THE MOON.

[www.badastronomy.com]

This is one that I thought was particularly thorough.