Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Armadillo Aerospace Flight Paves Way For Science Payloads

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the how-much-for-a-spacemail-stamp dept.

Transportation 63

Matt_dk writes "Armadillo Aerospace conducted two groundbreaking atmospheric test flights this weekend with their 'Mod' vertical-takeoff-vertical-landing rocket, a vehicle familiar to anyone who has followed NASA's Lunar Lander Challenge competitions. Flying from their test facility in Caddo Mills, Texas, Armadillo Aerospace first completed a milestone flight under a NASA contract, using methane fuel and liquid oxygen as propellant. Later that same afternoon, a second successful low-altitude flight was performed using a 'boosted hop' trajectory of the same type that will be used for suborbital flights to space."

cancel ×

63 comments

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28797941)

I'm glad John Carmack is doing something cool like this but are we geeks past this "Carmack is Jesus" thing?

IMO John and Id Software haven't really been relevant since 1998 or so, the industry has moved on.

Hm (3, Funny)

ChinggisK (1133009) | about 5 years ago | (#28797983)

I didn't realize armadillo's could fly at all, much less suborbitally.

D'oh! (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | about 5 years ago | (#28798003)

Blast! I had just escaped the apostrophe Nazis too.

Re:D'oh! (2, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 5 years ago | (#28798033)

Blast! I had just escaped the apostrophe Nazis too.

Nobody escapes the apostrophe Nazis!

Re:D'oh! (1)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#28798189)

Don't's you's mean's "Nobody's escape's the apostrophe's Nazi's!"?'s

Re:D'oh! (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 5 years ago | (#28798339)

Don't's you's mean's "Nobody's escape's the apostrophe's Nazi's!"?'s

/facepalm

Re:D'oh! (4, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 5 years ago | (#28798381)

No, he meant Nobody escapes the apostrophe Nazi\'s!

Re:D'oh! (1)

capnkr (1153623) | about 5 years ago | (#28799431)

OK, enough! I am invoking Godwins' Law.

Signed -

Quirk

Re:D'oh! (1)

wowbagger (69688) | about 5 years ago | (#28799577)

Your rong, you looser! An apo'strophe mean's "LOOK OUT! HERE COME'S AN "'S"!!!"

'So it 'should have been:

Nobody e'scape's the apo'strophe Nazi's!

Re:D'oh! (1)

hcdejong (561314) | about 5 years ago | (#28798987)

Our main weapons are fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to our language and a limitless supply of apostrophes!

domain (1)

zogger (617870) | about 5 years ago | (#28799517)

I double dog dare anyone to now go and register apostroph.es

Re:domain (1)

mustafap (452510) | about 5 years ago | (#28800557)

Gone already :o)

Re:D'oh! (1)

LearnToSpell (694184) | about 5 years ago | (#28798259)

We watch. And we are always here.

Re:D'oh! (2, Funny)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#28798687)

You cannot escape ze Apostrophe Nazis! Ve duped Apostrophe Neville Chamberlain and conquered Apostrophe Austria, and ve vill soon invade Apostrophe Poland!

(Personally, I much prefer the amusement of quote nazis [unnecessaryquotes.com] )

Re:D'oh! (1)

Molochi (555357) | about 5 years ago | (#28799063)

Thanks for that. It's "hillarious".

Re:D'oh! (1)

azav (469988) | about 5 years ago | (#28798785)

We will find you.

As my high school physics teacher said... (2, Funny)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 5 years ago | (#28798233)

I didn't realize armadillo's could fly at all, much less suborbitally.

You put enough speed behind anything, and it'll fly. Now it might burn up due to friction with the atmosphere, but rest assure that it will fly (until there's nothing left of it.)

Re:Hm (1)

tgd (2822) | about 5 years ago | (#28798447)

If you've followed the company the last six or seven years, your joke has a certain bite of truth to it ...

Re:Hm (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 5 years ago | (#28799347)

As God is my witness, I thought armadillos could fly!

Re:Hm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28799677)

I dunno about armadillos, but hedgehogs can. [armorgames.com]

Wow (3, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 5 years ago | (#28798013)

Know that there is a lot of folks involved with Armadillo Aerospace, but at first glance it looks like Carmack just has a gold touch.

Re:Wow (1)

Unending (1164935) | about 5 years ago | (#28798219)

If you ever get a chance to watch him present on Armadillo Aerospace you will understand why.
This really is his baby now and he is really making sure that they build everything from the bottom up rather than trying to start at some mid point.
The result of this is a very thorough knowledge of all of the systems, how to optimize them and their potential problems.

Re:Wow (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 years ago | (#28798359)

He has perseverance. Considering where they started from in the early days I'm amazed they have finally begun to have real prospects of success. Their electronics used to be an ramshackle mess of amateurish hacks held together with spit and duct tape. I would still never set foot on a manned spacecraft that they designed but congrats to them.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | about 5 years ago | (#28798443)

I'd trust hacks from Carmack more than I'd trust some of the engineering that came from my classmates. He understands the whole system... many engineers get the math fine, but completely forget how it applies to the whole. And that makes some of the designs sub optimal at best, and highly dangerous at worst.

Re:Wow (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 5 years ago | (#28798927)

That reminds me of school. We would have these assignments in computer science and some folks would ace all of the theoretical stuff on the tests. Then when we would actually build programs, people would sometimes make fun of my code (I started later than others, many had several years more coding), but mine always worked and I had several theory aces come back later and ask how I figured the assignment out.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | about 5 years ago | (#28800039)

but mine always worked and I had several theory aces come back later and ask how I figured the assignment out.

That's because they were told what the solution should look like. You actually figured it a solution without regard for what it "should" look like. That's the difference between knowledge and intelligence.

Re:Wow (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | about 5 years ago | (#28803899)

The idea is to get it all right - theory and practice - and producing good code is part of that.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | about 5 years ago | (#28805895)

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Re:Wow (1)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828821)

many engineers get the math fine, but completely forget how it applies to the whole.

I blame physics professors on this one. I started off my college career with an electronic technician program. I worked in the field a few years and did pretty well. Then I decided to go for an engineering degree, and got stalled in the electromagnetism part of the physics series.

As far as I could tell, there was no connection to the stuff I knew and understood in electronics and the math I was learning in that class, and the professor made no attempt to bridge the gap. I could do the labs easily thanks to my prior knowledge, but they made no sense in the context of the course material. I dropped out and went back years later, and got lucky in getting a professor who focused mainly on concepts and showing how the math logically follows from it.

Anyway, my point is that these engineers didn't forget how how it applies to the whole; they never learned it in the first place.

Re:Wow (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 5 years ago | (#28798543)

Not if you've followed his blogs and read of the number of problems and failures he's faced over the years. (Not to mention quite a few outright screwups.) He's climbed a very steep learning curve learning the difference between software and hardware.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | about 5 years ago | (#28802611)

Failure is a much better teacher than success.

Re:Wow (1)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#28799007)

Yep -- several hundred m/s delta-V down, only ~9,000 more to go.

Caddo Mills? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28798263)

I used to live there, nothin but steers & queers.

Story lacks all detail (2, Interesting)

EsJay (879629) | about 5 years ago | (#28798387)

How high? How far? What is a "boosted hop"? What is "closed loop throttle control"?

Re:Story lacks all detail (3, Informative)

foolish (46697) | about 5 years ago | (#28799457)

From a post by Matthew Ross: http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=38466#p38466 [spacefellowship.com]

"Both of those were "LLC-style" hops where the mod flies gently up to about 55 meters and then gently back down.
Since both of those went well, we decided to do a "boosted hop," where instead of gently flying up and down, it goes full throttle for about three seconds, coasts to apogee at low throttle, falls quickly back down and then throttles up before touching down"

A 5 second serch on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_loop [wikipedia.org]

"A closed-loop control system is one in which an input forcing function is determined in part by the system response. The measured response of a physical system is compared with a desired response. The difference between these two responses initiates actions that will result in the actual response of the system to approach the desired response."

So, engine generates thrust X, desired target of which is X+Y. Throttle is increased until measured response is X+Y. At which point the throttle is maintained or decreased, depending on what part of the flight profile the vehicle is in.

Re:Story lacks all detail (1)

grantek (979387) | about 5 years ago | (#28802299)

cf. Rocket Jump

Re:Story lacks all detail (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | about 5 years ago | (#28799775)

A boosted hop, according to Carmack's previous work, is when you do a little hop, and then detonate something below you.
The resulting detonation boosts your original hop.

Dear N.A.S.A: +1, Helpful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28798435)

To avoid regrets about contracting work to U.S. commercial fly-by-day-or-night space companies, I highly recommend you consider the advantages (ie. experience, reliability) offered by the S. P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout

Light on the details (3, Interesting)

sbeckstead (555647) | about 5 years ago | (#28798623)

There doesn't seem to be any type of accomplishment here except ~three or four paragraphs of an article about something that flies flying straight up and down then getting boosted by a hop while closing a control loop in microgravity?
There are details lacking to those that have no idea what Armadillo Aerospace builds and/or why?

Re:Light on the details (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | about 5 years ago | (#28798641)

Oops I left out the sub orbital trajectory but that didn't seem too important either.

Re:Light on the details (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28799519)

Agreed, the article needs more details.

Later that same afternoon, a second successful low-altitude flight was performed using a 'boosted hop' trajectory of the same type that will be used for suborbital flights to space."

Is that anything like the "rocket jump"?

Good, BUT how about shooting for the moon? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 years ago | (#28798625)

Seriously, if they have this down and working, could this be used on the moon? For the most part, I think that this craft will be limited here on earth. Though I could see it hoping from mountain top to mountain top to place weather instrumentation and perhaps even telescopes. It seems that the really useful place for this would be either the moon or even possibly mars.

Re:Good, BUT how about shooting for the moon? (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | about 5 years ago | (#28799685)

Seriously, if they have this down and working, could this be used on the moon? For the most part, I think that this craft will be limited here on earth. Though I could see it hoping from mountain top to mountain top to place weather instrumentation and perhaps even telescopes. It seems that the really useful place for this would be either the moon or even possibly mars.

You're late by 40 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

Oh good (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 years ago | (#28800219)

So, we can use these and scale them up right now. Yes? What do you mean no. You mean that it had support for just 2 crew for VERY short periods, had no shielding, and could not hop around on the moon, and we pretty much do not have capability to build it right now (without lots of money)? Oh, Ok. NOW, I understand your comment.

Here is armadillo's new ship and it has the ability to go up and down.

Re:Oh good (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#28839797)

GP said this kind of vertical take-off/landing rocket would be useful on the moon. I simply pointed out that it has already been done on the moon, if not nearly as sophisticated.

Re:Good, BUT how about shooting for the moon? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | about 5 years ago | (#28800437)

Seriously, if they have this down and working, could this be used on the moon?

I'm pretty sure it's on their mind, especially since they won part of the Northrop Grumman/NASA Lunar Lander Challenge [wikipedia.org] and anticipate winning the rest this year. Since it uses methane as its fuel, I imagine the system could also be quite handy for a Martian sample return or human mission, as you could harvest methane from the Martian atmosphere.

A copy of a post by one of the Armadillo team members from this weekend:

http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=38466#p38466 [spacefellowship.com]

Still very much in the game. In the past week, we've done three free flights with the Methane mod for the NASA contract. Tuesday night was just to make sure everything was A-OK for Saturday's flight, which was in front of a bunch of NASA people and other folks. Both of those were "LLC-style" hops where the mod flies gently up to about 55 meters and then gently back down.

Since both of those went well, we decided to do a "boosted hop," where instead of gently flying up and down, it goes full throttle for about three seconds, coasts to apogee at low throttle, falls quickly back down and then throttles up before touching down (this will be more like the flight profiles of the higher and higher altitude testing we're close to beginning). That flight went well too, except that in order to make sure to stay below the restrictions in the waiver for those flights, we put less pressure in the boosted-hop flight just to play it conservatively, and as a result it didn't go as high as we thought it might (only about 45 meters instead of twice that).

Also, we've already internally decided on a date when we'll attempt LLC level 2; not sure when that gets publically announced. That will be with the high-pressure augmented Mod that we've been calling the Super Mod, not the Methane Mod.

Oh, and alas... even though I say "we" in the above commentary, I was too busy at my "day job" so I missed ALL of the three free flights this week. So, I don't know what we'll have by way of video to show. I know Phil tried his best to capture some, but with all the other things he also had to worry about, I know the coverage will be limited.

How?? (3, Interesting)

greywire (78262) | about 5 years ago | (#28798969)

Can somebody explain to me how the hell they are going to pull this off?

I mean, its hard enough just to get enough fuel into a rocket to just barely get it and a small (relatively speaking) payload into space or orbit and then just fall back to earth without burning up.

And they want to do it and still have enough fuel left for a controlled, powered vertical landing?

While I think its an awesome idea that potentially avoids the dangerous re-entry issues of all previous and existing technologies (remember that the last space shuttle accident was because of a few damaged heat tiles!) and solves the re-usability problem, making for a possibly very economical vehicle, I just dont see how they are going to pack that much fuel into it.

Short of nuclear rockets, or things that make use of the air (either by flying up and/or using the atmosphere for the oxidizer instead of having it onboard), or some other new kind of amazing fuel, it doesnt seem possible.

Rockets and other vehicles meant to go into space face all sorts of structural issues and guidance problems and such, but ultimately the real problem is that of the energy required to get something up there in an efficient way. Thats why you have airplanes that fly up as high as they can before going into rocket mode, or space elevators, etc.

I am sure making a rocket go up and then come down without smashing itself or blowing up is incredibly hard, but that seems like a problem that doesnt need to be solved until we have some better fuel to put in it.

Am I missing something?

Re:How?? (1)

SixAndFiftyThree (1020048) | about 5 years ago | (#28799177)

What you're missing is that they don't (yet ...) plan to go to orbit. Getting to the upper atmosphere and popping up above 100km (as SpaceShipOne did) is much easier; you need a speed of only about 1000 m/s versus 8000 m/s. I'm sure Carmack would love to blast into orbit, but he is being realistic.

Re:How?? (1)

SixAndFiftyThree (1020048) | about 5 years ago | (#28799195)

Oops, replied to the wrong reply. Sorry.

Re:How?? (1)

foolish (46697) | about 5 years ago | (#28799283)

And as a bonus, part of the group AA belongs (the Commercial Spaceflight Federation?) to is trying to establish multiple markets for commercial enterprise. If they can give away a couple science payloads, and then later have a relatively cheap offering (sub 7-figure) for one-off or repeat experiments in the same flight profile, they demonstrate a new market. It's actually rather difficult for universities to get payloads to near-space. Year(s) waiting times mean that sometimes students and staff never see their projects take off (literally).

Re:How?? (1)

Molochi (555357) | about 5 years ago | (#28799381)

My guess is that they'll use thrust just for the final landing after the grunt work of losing velocity is done by heat shields and parachutes. Armadillo's approach seems similar to iD's approach to games; it's like a tech demo that shows a facet of the technology that could be useful. Maybe you'd want something capable of softlanding at the spaceport for secure satellite/experiment/data recovery.

Re:How?? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 5 years ago | (#28800649)

So long as the rocket has a wicked fun multiplayer mode...

Re:How?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28801957)

Serious business is serious. Patents for methods and techniques could pay off later.

Re:How?? (2, Informative)

samkass (174571) | about 5 years ago | (#28799539)

Single-Stage To Orbit [wikipedia.org] requires a mass-to-weight ratio in the range of 10-25. That is more than any current air or spacecraft, but recent advances in propellant storage and materials science has made it possible. Some existing rockets have been calculated to have a 10+ mass-to-weight first stage, but no one's ever tried to design the whole rocket around it. But there are certain economies of scale when you eliminate the staging as well... the rockets themselves are already heat-shielded and can lower the re-entry speeds as well. You only need 1 set of nozzles and no staging hardware. And the whole craft can be seamless and aerodynamic, allowing some steering and gliding ability without the weight of parachutes or wings.

The craft that inspired the recent SSTO designs is the DC-X [wikipedia.org] , a sub-orbital prototype that was supposed to be followed by an orbital DC-Y before funding was cancelled (and the craft crashed and burned on its last flight).

IMHO, even if you put one of these things on top of an expendable booster to get it into orbit, having a partially fueled vertical lander in LEO suddenly opens up the solar system to some exciting possibilities.

Re:How?? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | about 5 years ago | (#28800539)

From the linked story, the current focus isn't on orbital research but on microgravity and suborbital research, which current has to be done on things like sounding rockets which are quite a bit more expensive than what Armadillo Aerospace is offering:

(it occurs to me that I'm pasting almost the entire link...)

Later that same afternoon, a second successful low-altitude flight was performed using a âoeboosted hopâ trajectory of the same type that will be used for suborbital flights to space. The âoeboosted hopâ trajectory allowed the vehicle to maintain a reduced-g environment through closed loop throttle control, a technique that opens the door for future flights for microgravity science, technology development, and education missions. ... Professor Collicott has been leading a group of Purdue University students in developing a fluid-mechanics science payload that they plan to fly soon on board the Armadillo Aerospace vehicles under an agreement developed by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

âoeSeeing the latest Armadillo Aerospace launches in person was a thrill. Weâ(TM)re very excited about the reduced-gravity experiment value of these innovative Armadillo rockets. In addition, there is nothing like seeing a launch live to get people and especially students excited about aerospace technology,â said Professor Collicott. âoeArmadilloâ(TM)s eager leadership in moving student sub-orbital rocket experiments from dreams to reality is already impacting the next generation of aerospace engineers in a uniquely powerful way,â Professor Collicott concluded.

The work between Purdue University and Armadillo Aerospace is serving as a pathfinder effort for future integration of other science payloads on commercial suborbital vehicles. Large numbers of research flights on a variety of suborbital vehicles are envisioned under NASAâ(TM)s Commercial Suborbital Research Program, based at the NASA Ames Research Center, and scientists are eager to begin working with vehicle developers to get experience integrating science payloads with vehicles.

armadillos (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28799081)

crunchy armadillos

Video Link (3, Informative)

malloc (30902) | about 5 years ago | (#28799209)

From the Space Fellowship forum page: http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=396&start=1710 [spacefellowship.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_rqVBhwx6I [youtube.com]

Also on the SF page, a bit of commentary from Matthew Ross, including that they've internally decided on a date for LLC 2.

-malloc

Still hoping for paraffin (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | about 5 years ago | (#28799307)

I'm still hoping one of these private companies will give the paraffin (candle wax) rockets a try:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/28jan_envirorocket.htm [nasa.gov]
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2003/03images/paraffin/paraffin.html [nasa.gov]

I assume these rockets still still have some serious engineering kinks to be worked out, but it would be incredibly slick if they could make it work.

Re:Still hoping for paraffin (1)

cmowire (254489) | about 5 years ago | (#28799855)

The problem is that just because it's paraffin and an oxidizer doesn't mean it's that much simpler or that much safer than a liquid fueled rocket. Instead of two sets of plumbing, you have one set, but that's still rocket plumbing and it's still awfully troublesome.

Consider how Scaled Composites made a big deal about how safe their rubber+nitrous oxide hybrid engines were.... and then killed a few people in a nitrous oxide plumbing accident while working on SpaceShipTwo.

"scientific" payloads (1)

cbraga (55789) | about 5 years ago | (#28800017)

Is that what you wanted to write?

Beer? (1, Funny)

sbeckstead (555647) | about 5 years ago | (#28800579)

A boosted hop (I guess genetically modified) may be useful for making beer? But why does it have a trajectory?

Hidden joke on their website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804897)

I've just looked at the contact info and there's a geek joke hidden in it:

Technical Contact:
johnc@idsoftware.com

Business Contact:
kak@fountainheadent.com

PR Contact:
pr@armadilloaerospace.com

Stuff:
loot@armadilloaerospace.com

Yeah right "loot" for "stuff related e-mails". I love you guys.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...