no_way posted this over here <br /><br />But thought this deserved to be a thread in itself so everyone gets to see it. This is the kinda stuff that just gets you EXCITED about private space industry and what will be achieved in years to come. Sooooo coool! <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos<br /><br />(just in case, the video is the one at the top, Space Access 2007)<br /><br /><br />Go Armadillo! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
- Status
That was a great video. The modular rocket looked like it could have aerodynamic problems at max Q though - that's a lot of hardware to flap in the wind.
Yeah, cool video.<br /><br />I'm very impressed with Mr. Carmack's approach. Design by computer and PowerPoint presentations are pretty worthless without some good old fashioned, hands-on engineering and hardware building. The devil is in the details and if you don't actually try to fly something, those details may not become evident.<br /><br />Pixel is an interesting vehicle. I just wonder what kind of payload it can carry. Mr. Carmack says he's confident they can now get to suborbital altitudes, but is that with a human equivalent payload or what? Or maybe that will come with the next generation vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
You can ask him these questions direct over at SpaceFellowship forums Q&A thread. He tends to answer the interesting ones<br />
Also, see this post for an overview of the accompanying talk he did at SA 07<br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008732.html<br /><br />Interesting bits:<br />Spent three million dollars over six years. Half a million dollars a year, with most still in volunteer positions. <br />Have experimental permit to go up to Oklahoma Spaceport and do some testing next month.<br />Vehicle "looks a little funny," but has more capability and performance than either SpaceShipOne or DC-X.<br /><br />ill better stop here, go over and read the rest on yourself
I think the modular rocket was just showing an idea sample...<br /><br />If they get to that point I'm sure it will look a lot different. They seem to be learning as they go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
nice video. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
> <i><font color="yellow">The devil is in the details and if you don't actually try to fly something, those details may not become evident.</font>/i><br /><br />Armadillo is the ultimate example of "design a little, build a little, test a little, fly a little, repeat" (or however the saying goes).</i>
If you take the modular vehicle and replace all the modular tanks with one big set of tanks for each stage, the rocket magically turns into the falcon 9. <br /><br />Tanks are relatively cheap and probably aren't the best place to try to gain efficiency through mass producing more/smaller units. Also the modular design does not have the engine out capability that an engine cluster on the bottom of a large tank has (without complex inter-modular plumbing).<br /><br />If they want to do mass produced tanks, the best bet might be several large streched tanks, like the Saturn 1 used. OTRAG tanks were very long and narrow.
Josh - <br /><br />Carmack's a smart guy, I'm sure they've considered the modular design limitations. My guess is that it was just for illustrative purposes. I'd believe that clustering fuel tanks like they show tends to "waste" mass and volume as well, but then I'm not a rocket designer. ;-) <br /><br />It may be that for suborbital flight, they don't care about optimization - since the X-Prize is over and the LLC doesn't require that kind of performance. I'll be interested to see if they actually step up to orbital designs in the future!<br /><br />Radar: The build-test-build-test (ad nauseum) cycle is usually called "iterative design" these days. It sounds better than "trial-and-error" (and TBE also implies that you aren't necessarily doing solid engineering between trials; whereas we've obviously "seen" Armadillo's thinking and engineering through their blogs and posts over the years)... 
<br /><br />Take care, <br /><br />--Noel<br />
<br /><br />Take care, <br /><br />--Noel<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It may be that for suborbital flight, they don't care about optimization <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />All he cares about are low operational costs and reliability. Everything else comes second to that. <br /><br />Performance has to be sufficient, not excellent.<br />
Amen, To often rockets are built as Ferraris and Porches to do the job of a Minivan. The rocket has to get there, if it uses more fuel but is cheaper and more fault tolerant design that costs less to build it will be a much better machine. <br /><br />A low isp engine that runs on NOX and kero would make a great engine for suborbital tourism. It would be pretty easy to fuel, (and refuel) You may have to stage a little more than a highly efficient design. If you want the holy grail of SSTO then you'll need an efficient design.<br /><br />exit soapbox
Regarding SSTO and Ferraris (cute analogy, given Carmack's past vehicles *chuckle*)...<br /><br />I posted this in the SpaceX thread, but it bears repeating:<br /><br />Go read the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's final report. <br /><br />Yeah, its a monstrous document; but it is *really* eye-opening to see their comments on the operational history of the Shuttle. They tried to make it all things for all people, and failed at every single major design goal (!!) Sure, its had a long and glorious track-record of launching to orbit; but its cost, re-usability, safety-margin, total payload, etc. etc. are all short of their individual objectives.<br /><br />I've designed and built model aircraft, have designed (and am in the process of building) a fiberglass/carbon-fiber man-carrying aircraft, and can say with certainty that all flying vehicles are constructed out of compromises. You have to pick and choose what is important to your mission, and then optimize around that. <br /><br />Sometimes a collection of simple and efficient items that each do one thing well is better than a one-size-fits-all solution.<br /><br />--Noel<br />
NWade,<br /><br />I agree with what you are saying due to mass requirements on a spacecraft (at least from Earth surface to LEO) it is hard to live with the compromises that aircraft, automobiles, etc. The hard part about the design is knowing where to draw the lines on compromises.
This kind of research and testing could potentially lead to an operational TSTO, or maybe even an SSTO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
Thats for sure, and the propellant to payload mass which is something like 10 to 1...10 times the propellant and probably more. But at this juncture, even a 2 stage to orbit craft would be a breakthrough provided its as reusable as possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"...darn atmosphere"</font><br /><br />I bet your tune changes when it comes to landing from orbit. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I know that staging events are historically major failure modes, but what if - and the opposite may very well prove to be the case for all I know - what if Armadillo somehow makes it highly reliable at staging?<br /><br />Three stage to orbit?<br /><br />Maybe even Four stage to orbit?<br /><br />This would let you put a final stage up there with full tanks and /> 7 km/s dV capability, plenty for delivery to the lunar surface. Four stages could even put that upper stage on a C3 />0 Earth escape trajectory. Likely a small value of C3, but enough for asteroid missions.<br /><br />I haven't actually run any numbers on it, but . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Extra stages add operational complexity in ground support. Restacking, longer turnaround times, less potential flight rate.<br /><br />Thats exactly something that they want to avoid. Its not a fixed equation either way. You could have potential for five minute turnaround on your orbital craft, be it one or six stages, but at price points that you are offering it you wont get anywhere near flight rates utilizing that fast turnaround.<br />But, with a machine like that you would be very likely be paying only fuel costs ( minuscule piece of current launches ) and insurances, allowing for very low price.<br /><br />So there are couple different variables to balance here. Designing upfront for slow turnaround will basically push you towards higher costs and also higher prices.<br /><br />Pixel, being basically a one-stage liquid vehicle, is as operationally simple as it gets, in theory, with relatively modest infrastructure they could do lots of flights in a single day.
When I see what Armadillo is flying (and I saw Pixel at the XPrize), what I see is a planetary lander. I see this even before a suborbital vehicle - a simple vehicle (relatively) that reliably puts payloads on the moon. Pixel has a strong resemblance to Fregat. I guess you could stack them for a launcher (sub or orbital) but I see an upper stage/lander everytime.<br /><br />Maybe the SpaceX lunar architecture will be stacks of Pixels doing TLI and landing Dragons on the moon? <br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Good points, no_way. So what if they somehow make it operationally efficient too? Somehow. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I'm in the operations-is-everything-well-almost camp myself, for a long time now, since you and others hammered the point home a few years back actually.<br /><br />What I'm thinking is that the first stage is the one with the fastest turnaround, and the second stage is next fastest. The upper stage is customer-supplied, no turnaround. A third stage of four would have no turnaround if left in HEEO (for example), and a second stage of three would go a long ways downrange so would have long turnaround just for that reason. A second stage of four is the interesting case I'm noodling on when I get a chance (as if <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />). What's the most economical downrange distance?<br /><br />Stages that stay in space have no turn around of course, but what about a once-around second or third stage?<br /><br />You are definitely right about the operational cost being the most important factor here. Prolly none of this would make sense if it isn't somehow extremely operationally efficient, without building a huge industrial complex to make that happen. A tall order.<br /><br />The most intriguing part of Pixel for me is that it's also a lunar lander. If I want to send a privately-financed experiment to a prospecting site in 2012, Armadillo is looking pretty good. (lol, I see JO5H posted on the idea while I wrote. multi-tasking)<br /><br />What isn't clear to me, I guess I should go ask him, see if anyone else has asked this, maybe you guys know, is Pixel just about the upcoming $20 Million prize money and being a big part of XPrizeCup or is it ALSO about a commercial follow-on product line?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Russian cosmonauts make quick work of space station spacewalk
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram