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.

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! |

"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

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

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

Tim Behrendsen wrote:

(John Carmack) wrote in message
Our launch license application may be the gating factor. Even getting
an environmental impact statement at White Sands Missile Range, where
they have done all this many times before, has been quoted at taking
$250,000 and not be finished until August of next year, which is
absurd. An EIS is a prerequisite for a launch license, which can take
six months longer. The default proposed timeline for a launch license
didn't have us launching until after the X-Prize expired. We
obviously hope to be able to compress this.

Sheesh, what a rip-off.

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. Lots of open space, too. Transporting the
peroxide might be a bit tricky, though.

Maybe just the threat of launching in a different country might shake
loose your local congressman/senators.

But the reaction may be of a negative sort....

There's all kinds of import/export and technology transfer issues
involved, that at the very least, might drive up the costs again, and at
worst, might get one shut down. (If not outright, then by being caught
in the mire of even more regulations.)

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

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:03:51 GMT, (Henry Spencer)


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

Yes. That Kiwi building the 'cruise missile' got some mumble about
'missile treaty'.

Gunn

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 +++

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 +++