Armadillo video is on line (its a must see!!!)

[j05h]

<i>> 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? </i><br /><br />Pretty sure it's all of the above, though I didn't realize the prize had grown for the Lunar Lander Challenge.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacester]

Dang! I should've checked that number. I'm sure I got it wrong, then. What is the prize money, anyway?<br /><br />What I'm wondering is that since he likes to play with so many different configurations, will he move on to a whole new architecture after he wins the Challenge? He stated that Pixel is designed specifically for that contest, but the graphic shows Pixels as clustered into stages. Is that just having fun with the pixel concept or is that a preview of what comes next? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nwade]

Uh, quick note:<br /><br />The illustrations/animations at the end of AA's SA'07 video do *NOT* show Pixel in clusters. <br /><br />It shows a similar (but new) configuration involving just 2 tanks (instead of 4) stacked vertically and integrated into a distinct "unit" that can be clustered. Looks like different plumbing, maybe different controls/avionics, probably a refined engine (knowing how the AA guys love to develop and try new things)...<br /><br />Take care, <br /><br />--Noel<br />

 

[bpfeifer]

"What is the prize money, anyway? "<br /><br />Level 1: $500,000<br />Level 2: $1,500,000<br /><br />Read the description from http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm#lunarlander<br /><br />Lunar Lander Challenge<br /><br />The Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate technology developments supporting the commercial creation of a vehicle capable of ferrying cargo or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA’s space exploration goals as well as the personal spaceflight industry. Additionally, the prize will help industry build new vehicles and develop the operational capacity to operate quick turnaround vertical take-off, vertical landing vehicles, which will be of significant use to many facets of the commercial launch procurement market.<br /><br />The complete Lunar Lander Challenge purse of $2,000,000 is divided into two levels: Level One, worth a total of $500,000, and Level Two, worth a total of $1,500,000. To win prize money in either level, a rocket-propelled vehicle with an assigned payload must take-off vertically, climb to a defined altitude, fly for a pre-determined amount of time, then land vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the take-off point. After remaining at this location for a period of time, the vehicle must take-off, fly for the same amount of time, and land again on its original launch pad. The primary difference between the two levels will be in the time of flight, the surface terrain at the landing sites, and the corresponding degree of difficulty presented for precision landing and servicing of the vehicles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Unfortunately NASA learned the wrong lesson from Apollo; that they could design a completely new launch vehicle without the need for design evoluion or prototypes; i.e. that analysis can substitute for experience. Now they are learning the wrong lesson from the Shuttle; that reusable spacecraft are impractical.<br /><br />All Armadillo's designs are tested repeatedly through design evolution, all appear to be fully reusable, and all are entirely liquid fueled. NASA could learn from that! Whether there are one or two stages is less important than what actually has to be done to get the vehicle ready to fly again.<br />

 

[rocketman5000]

I believe what he meant was it wasn't an iterative design. I can only partially agree with that.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Now they are learning the wrong lesson from the Shuttle; that reusable spacecraft are impractical.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think NASA (at least Griffin) concluded that reusable spacecraft are impractical. I think the lesson is don't reach too far beyond what you already know how to do. The shuttle was too much of a leap, and the result is that it barely worked (in the sense of meetings its goals -- reduced costs, launch rates, etc.).<br /><br />The Ares I and Ares V vehicles are about one thing -- putting enough mass into space to go to the Moon and Mars. I don't think I have seen anyone (recently) propose to use a reusable vehicle to assemble enough mass in orbit to build a Lunar outpost and eventually a Mars outpost.<br /><br />A resuable spacecraft to put up the required amount of mass would have to be enormous, or an enormous number of missions would have to be launched in a relatively short period of time.</i>

 

[spacester]

Nice post. The high flight rate model is worth remembering here on this thread.<br /><br />What I would like to see is a NASA that realizes there is another kind of re-usability: on-orbit, Cis-Lunar utilization of second stages. Propellant depots, space tugs; not just by themselves, but as prop storage and propulsion modules. Second stages with enough GN&C to be captured by a space tug and enough interfaces to store prop and maybe fire the engines. Note there would be an excess of engines which contain lots of refined metals, which is good stuff to have on the moon next to your solar furnaces and extrusion machines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There is another kind of re-usability: on-orbit, Cis-Lunar utilization of second stages. Propellant depots, space tugs</font>/i><br /><br />One concept of operation that intrigues me is two or three stage system for moderate amounts of mass (e.g., humans or basic supplies) in which all the components are reusable. The first stage is Earth-to-LEO, and these vehicles would be optimized for traveling through the atmosphere. The second stage is for travel between LEO and Lunar orbit, and these vehicles would be optimized for zero-G travel (e.g., no landing gear). The third stage is Lunar orbit to Lunar surface, and it would be optimized for short VTVL trips with no atmosphere.<br /><br />For time-sensitive cargo (e.g., humans), the second stage could use chemical rockets to limit transit time. Otherwise, ion propulsion could be used to deliver things like supplies.<br /><br />By standardizing the interfaces (e.g., docking rings, communications, procedures, etc.), multiple parties could participate. For example, there are clearly many groups looking seriously looking at delivering solutions to the first stage (moderate size mass to LEO).<br /><br />Such a system would only become useful once a large enough presense is established on the Moon which would require frequent, low-to-moderate mass transportation, so the Ares I & V are still needed as pathfinder systems.</i>

 

[vulture2]

>>>The Saturn vehicles and the Apollo spacecraft had "iron birds", that is non flying test stages. Boiler plate Apollo spacecraft were used to test the abort systems etc. I do not understand why you say the vehicles were built and tested only by analysis.<br /><br />I was referring to flying technology demonstrators and flying prototypes. The Saturn I flights tested some elements of the upper stage and spacecraft in flight, but didn't develop or change the technology. Ground test vehicles can serve to identify certain problems, like fatigue failure and mechanical interference, but they don't indentify unanticipated failure modes or costly maintenance requirements. The Shuttle program had the OV-99 test article, which passed its ground tests and later became the Challanger, only to be lost with its crew due to a failure mode which neither analysis nor ground testing had revealed. <br /><br />Reusable launch vehicles, whether for planetary landing or orbital launch, are practical with the evolutionary design approach demonstrated so elegantly by Armadillo. The failure of the Space Shuttle to achieve its cost and safety goals was due to design choices made before we had any flight experience with reusable vehicles, not because reusability is intrinsically either costly or unsafe.