|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message ... "Ultimate Buu" : "John Carmack" wrote in message om... We did the helicopter drop test of our X-Prize vehicle with parachute system and crushable nose on Saturday. Full report, with lots of video and images, at: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n....ws?news_id=215 The vehicle oscillated under the parachute a bit more than we hoped (+/- 13 degrees), which caused the vehicle to roll back up a bit after landing, but overall it went well. We are going to make a few modifications to improve things before the first free flight, which should be in a couple months. Hi John, Your vehicle looks a little small IMO, especially the capsule-to-engine/propellant ratio seems a bit off. Welcome to the world of high density fuels and non-NASA designs. Why does it look a little small to you? If you read the web page you will note that this drop was done with the smaller of two tanks, and if it turns out they need more fuel, they will just swap tanks. Now that is what simple designs let you do. If you read the rest of the website you will see that flight hops and test firng of the engines already means they know thier fuel requirements. I always assumed that hydrogen peroxide packed a much smaller punch per pound and that therefore a lot more fuel would be needed. If it works with this or a slightly larger tank, so much the better! But if it works, I'm starting to wonder why al other rockets have to be so large and cumbersome compared to John's elegantly small design. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
In article ,
Tim Behrendsen wrote: How about heading south and doing things in Mexico? Much less convenient, obviously, but I would imagine $250K would buy a lot of "licenses" down there. No good. John is a US citizen, Armadillo is a US organization... so the FAA still claims jurisdiction, over and above what the Mexicans may want. (If the FAA thinks the locals are competent, they may relax and let the locals worry about it... but that is their decision, not John's, and they're most unlikely to do so if the whole thing looks like a deliberate attempt to evade regulation.) Moreover, if John tries to take his rocket to Mexico, then he has to satisfy not only the FAA, but also the Bureau of Export Administration. He's exporting missile technology! And if you thought the FAA was hard to deal with, the export people are a whole new order of magnitude. The FAA guys are actually *trying* to do the right thing, somewhat handicapped by legal constraints (the requirement for an EIS is not their idea, and they are in fact trying to get RLVs exempted the same way aircraft are exempt) and bureaucratic tendencies; the BXA feels no desire to try. -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Behrendsen wrote: How about heading south and doing things in Mexico? Much less convenient, obviously, but I would imagine $250K would buy a lot of "licenses" down there. Moreover, if John tries to take his rocket to Mexico, then he has to satisfy not only the FAA, but also the Bureau of Export Administration. He's exporting missile technology! I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick: rocket technology equals missile technology NOT. While its true that most modern missiles of all kinds are propelled by various rocket engines, a rocket is not a missile. It reminded me of this reasoning by DoJ: "These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in "light anti-tank" weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles. " http://www.space-frontier.org/FFO/st.../20/04421/3786 -kert |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
We have had a ~5,000 lbf engine basically ready to fire for something like eight months, but we have been conserving propellant. About 20 liters of peroxide a second? How much run time do you need to test this engine properly? Breaking in the catalysts can sometimes take several runs worth of peroxide. We won't fire this engine until we have at least 50 gallons of peroxide to spare. Fully qualifying the engine means doing multiple X-Prize duration burns, which is 500+ gallons, even for just a single engine. We have a final (we hope) list of demands from FMC for buying 90% peroxide, but it will take a notable amount of money and effort to comply. We are still holding out hope that our mixed propellant schemes work out, which would get FMC out of the loop, at least until we need to by tank car loads of 50%. We should have some new tests on that this weekend. Can you say how much all thier demands have cost so far? I spent about $8000 on Teflon pumps and bottles plus other miscellanious stuff they wanted. The real problems are the many millions of dollars worth of insurance they are asking for. It was a really significant effort for us to secure insurance just for occupying our new shop, and we are hesitant to press our current company for more coverage, because they may chose to drop us. FMC also wants a "no manned vehicles" clause in the contract right now, which sort of defeats the purpose. They say they are willing to discuss it later, but if we can't get some kind of a guarantee from them, it may be a dead end. I am expecting to have to do a half dozen flights of the subscale vehicle, a half dozen pre-launch-license flights of the big vehicle, then up to ten launch licensed flights of the big vehicle to end with the two X-Prize flights. This will take quite a bit of time, and I still consider it a very good chance that we will completely destroy a vehicle sometime along the way, forcing a rebuilding period. I wish I had the money to rebuild like you do. Personally I have made very little progress because I can't afford a large number of rebuilds of even my old engine designs. One very great thing about your website is that you show the failures as well as the successes along the way. Do you have a lathe? Building engines isn't all that expensive, compared to all the other parts of a test stand. If you don't care too much about mass, you can make monoprop engines out of brass, which is really easy to work with. John Carmack |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
Kaido Kert wrote:
I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick: rocket technology equals missile technology NOT. While its true that most modern missiles of all kinds are propelled by various rocket engines, a rocket is not a missile. There are other things that missiles need, other than what a space launch type rocket can bring to the table. And military applications tend to optimize on solution spaces differently than space launch (storability, etc being larger concerns). However, the dual use nature and convertability of many space launch systems to weapons purposes is hard to avoid. A lot of CATS amateurs haven't looked at the military side enough to understand that the differences between modern rockets and missiles don't mean there isn't a significant dual use problem. There is. Really. Even John Carmack's and Burt Rutan's equipment could be made into medium grade SRBMs, the Armadillo stuff without too much effort. Over the long term (20 years) proliferation of low cost rocket technology is a lost cause IMHO. Over the medium term (5-10 years) how we treat the technology in terms of level of detail we publish and allow foreigners open access to could make a large difference in hostile nations capability growth. This is not an ideal situation, but it is reality. -george william herbert |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
Kaido Kert wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Behrendsen wrote: How about heading south and doing things in Mexico? Much less convenient, obviously, but I would imagine $250K would buy a lot of "licenses" down there. Moreover, if John tries to take his rocket to Mexico, then he has to satisfy not only the FAA, but also the Bureau of Export Administration. He's exporting missile technology! I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick: rocket technology equals missile technology NOT. While its true that most modern missiles of all kinds are propelled by various rocket engines, a rocket is not a missile. You know that, I know that. Convince the bureaucrats of that, in something less than geologic time. Espically in these times. They lose nothing by using the most strict interpretation they want. Legal challenge? More money, more time. It reminded me of this reasoning by DoJ: "These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in "light anti-tank" weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles. " http://www.space-frontier.org/FFO/st.../20/04421/3786 -kert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
Kaido Kert wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Behrendsen wrote: How about heading south and doing things in Mexico? Much less convenient, obviously, but I would imagine $250K would buy a lot of "licenses" down there. Moreover, if John tries to take his rocket to Mexico, then he has to satisfy not only the FAA, but also the Bureau of Export Administration. He's exporting missile technology! I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick: rocket technology equals missile technology NOT. pffft. Now try telling that to the people running the worlds major congragation of maniacally paranoid people aka US export controls. Some of teh things ontheir lists are quite ... astounding. While its true that most modern missiles of all kinds are propelled by various rocket engines, a rocket is not a missile. its not question of 'is it a missle' - its more like 'can one construct a missile out of the parts of this or come up with a design for a missile by studying this thing' It reminded me of this reasoning by DoJ: "These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in "light anti-tank" weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles. " http://www.space-frontier.org/FFO/st.../20/04421/3786 precicely. and one might - whetever a terrorist would do so is a different and not entirely relevant question. -kert -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Armadillo Aerospace drop test
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Kaido Kert wrote: Moreover, if John tries to take his rocket to Mexico, then he has to satisfy not only the FAA, but also the Bureau of Export Administration. He's exporting missile technology! I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick: rocket technology equals missile technology NOT. In the eyes of the government, it does. And there is *some* justice in this: while the exact hardware might not be usable for destructive purposes, the technology behind it often could be. Remember that export controls on missile technology are not primarily aimed at preventing acquisition of hardware by terrorists (however often that is now used as an excuse) -- the concern that motivates them is preventing acquisition of *technology* by *nations*. All that being said, it is also true that the US government in particular is ludicrously over-zealous about export controls, and does not even recognize the "public domain" exemption which most other countries have. Its worse - it does not even acknowledge that trying to control things developed elsewhere is futile but applies it to everything, whetever originating in US or not. An iranian with rocket related information coming from iran to the us will not be able to legaly (if anybody knows) leave with the same laptop whetever it was powered up in the us or no. But governments don't have to be logical, just pass laws. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engineers test the first engine for NASA's return to flight mission | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | July 19th 04 06:45 PM |
ATK Conducts Successful Full-Scale Space Shuttle Motor Test | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | June 11th 04 03:53 PM |
Successful test leads way for safer Shuttle solid rocket motor | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | June 11th 04 03:50 PM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Resignations | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | September 24th 03 07:19 AM |
Humans, Robots Work Together To Test 'Spacewalk Squad' Concept | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | July 2nd 03 04:15 PM |