Author Topic: Armadillo Aerospace Update Thread (Read 244736 times)

NotGncDude · « **Reply #120 on:** 12/25/2010 02:44 am »

Quote from: GncDude on 10/19/2010 04:34 am

Quote from: savuporo on 10/17/2010 04:59 pm
Via hobbyspace and Ben Brockert comes this bit:

Quote
More firing on the 4k alcohol engine, boy is that thing loud.

Hm .. where are they using that ? Rocket racer ?

I was going to say it's for JSC's RR2 (48" quad) but that one is methane. So yeah, what's that one for? Ben around here?

Now I suspect it's for the "tube rocket"

corrodedNut · « **Reply #121 on:** 01/13/2011 01:37 pm »

Tube rocket:

http://flightplan.xprize.org/post/2717882796/2011-has-been-off-to-an-eventful-start-for-our-two

I wonder why they have decided to go with the conventional "tube rocket" design now? Does high altitude make them nervous, ie. get experience with a traditional (and perhaps cheaper) HPR design before risking their LLC hertiage vehicles? Masten, on the other hand, seems content to evolve their LLC vehicle to high altitude filghts.

It'll be interesting to watch these two stratagies play out in the coming year.

maitri982 · « **Reply #122 on:** 01/13/2011 01:50 pm »

BTW...i thought Armadillo was supposed to do a high altitude flight at the end of 2010? I guess they didn't make the deadline.

I look forward to seeing them finally launch one of their rockets to much higher altitudes instead of the relatively small hops we have been treated to for years now.

It's time to push the limits and see what your rocket can do...

Kevin

Moe Grills · « **Reply #123 on:** 01/13/2011 07:19 pm »

Quote from: maitri982 on 01/13/2011 01:50 pm

BTW...i thought Armadillo was supposed to do a high altitude flight at the end of 2010? I guess they didn't make the deadline.

I look forward to seeing them finally launch one of their rockets to much higher altitudes instead of the relatively small hops we have been treated to for years now.

It's time to push the limits and see what your rocket can do...

Kevin

Ditto.

rdale · « **Reply #124 on:** 01/13/2011 07:34 pm »

Quote from: Moe Grills on 01/13/2011 07:19 pm

Ditto.

What?

rklaehn · « **Reply #125 on:** 01/13/2011 07:39 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 01/13/2011 01:37 pm

Tube rocket:

http://flightplan.xprize.org/post/2717882796/2011-has-been-off-to-an-eventful-start-for-our-two

I wonder why they have decided to go with the conventional "tube rocket" design now? Does high altitude make them nervous, ie. get experience with a traditional (and perhaps cheaper) HPR design before risking their LLC hertiage vehicles? Masten, on the other hand, seems content to evolve their LLC vehicle to high altitude filghts.

It'll be interesting to watch these two stratagies play out in the coming year.

Armadillo aerospace is a commercial company now. So maybe they think there is a market for a reusable sounding rocket using their existing technology.

I am sure they will continue their VTVL work as well.

NotGncDude · « **Reply #126 on:** 01/13/2011 08:06 pm »

Quote from: rklaehn on 01/13/2011 07:39 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 01/13/2011 01:37 pm
Tube rocket:

http://flightplan.xprize.org/post/2717882796/2011-has-been-off-to-an-eventful-start-for-our-two

I wonder why they have decided to go with the conventional "tube rocket" design now? Does high altitude make them nervous, ie. get experience with a traditional (and perhaps cheaper) HPR design before risking their LLC hertiage vehicles? Masten, on the other hand, seems content to evolve their LLC vehicle to high altitude filghts.

It'll be interesting to watch these two stratagies play out in the coming year.

Armadillo aerospace is a commercial company now. So maybe they think there is a market for a reusable sounding rocket using their existing technology.

I am sure they will continue their VTVL work as well.

I'll venture it's a combination of getting there fast, get paid for it, and learning about high mach flight with a more traditional rocket.

simonbp · « **Reply #127 on:** 01/16/2011 10:25 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 01/13/2011 01:37 pm

I wonder why they have decided to go with the conventional "tube rocket" design now?

The conventional design is conventional for a good reason. Indeed, the link you had said it best: for the same propellant mass, less structural mass, and much less drag. For the high-altitude flights, they're going to need to go much faster than they're ever gone, and unless they want to loose a lot to drag, that means a tube-shaped rocket. Remember, drag force goes as velocity squared...

Robotbeat · « **Reply #128 on:** 01/17/2011 03:27 am »

Quote from: simonbp on 01/16/2011 10:25 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 01/13/2011 01:37 pm
I wonder why they have decided to go with the conventional "tube rocket" design now?

The conventional design is conventional for a good reason. Indeed, the link you had said it best: for the same propellant mass, less structural mass, and much less drag. For the high-altitude flights, they're going to need to go much faster than they're ever gone, and unless they want to loose a lot to drag, that means a tube-shaped rocket. Remember, drag force goes as velocity squared...

Drag is proportional to Velocity squared times frontal area (usually) times a drag coefficient (depends on the shape). The last two parts are what determine the usual "rocket" shape. And drag coefficient changes once you go transonic then supersonic then hypersonic...

Lars_J · « **Reply #129 on:** 01/17/2011 03:32 am »

It will be interesting to see what landing legs they put on this thing...

corrodedNut · « **Reply #130 on:** 01/23/2011 04:44 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 01/17/2011 03:32 am

It will be interesting to see what landing legs they put on this thing...

None, apparently...but here's an eye-full of everything else:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=372

Robotbeat · « **Reply #131 on:** 01/23/2011 05:07 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 01/23/2011 04:44 pm

Quote from: Lars_J on 01/17/2011 03:32 am
It will be interesting to see what landing legs they put on this thing...

None, apparently...but here's an eye-full of everything else:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=372

Interesting... It's still supposed to be reusable, though.

neilh · « **Reply #132 on:** 01/23/2011 07:00 pm »

Also, quite a few new Armadillo images were added yesterday to Flickr by "weldsman":

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29153024@N07/

mto · « **Reply #133 on:** 03/01/2011 12:53 am »

mto · « **Reply #134 on:** 03/02/2011 02:24 am »

kevin-rf · « **Reply #135 on:** 03/02/2011 02:29 pm »

In the slow mo, did something tangle, or is that a backup strap incase I assume some sort of shock absorber broke?

simonbp · « **Reply #136 on:** 03/02/2011 06:47 pm »

Thanks; it's really looking like a super-sized Estes rocket, complete with pop-off nose!

And welcome to the site!

mto · « **Reply #137 on:** 03/02/2011 10:13 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 03/02/2011 06:47 pm

And welcome to the site!

Thanks! I've been lurking for a while and enjoying the great content.

zaitcev · « **Reply #138 on:** 03/06/2011 08:37 pm »

So, if Stig lands on its engine and smashes it by design, it clearly is not "reusable". Therefore, it is in the same class as SpaceLoft XL. Both of them launch from the same site. So, is one any better than other? Cheaper? Better payload environment?

hop · « **Reply #139 on:** 03/06/2011 09:16 pm »

Quote from: zaitcev on 03/06/2011 08:37 pm

So, if Stig lands on its engine and smashes it by design, it clearly is not "reusable".

It is not designed to smash the engine, and chambers and/or nozzles are replaceable.

See posts by Ben here http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=396&start=2265 and here http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12017&start=15

In any case, the primary purpose is to gain experience going high and fast.

Armadillo recently posted a hold down firing: