Author Topic: Armadillo Aerospace Update Thread (Read 244727 times)

yg1968 · « **Reply #140 on:** 03/11/2011 03:21 pm »

It's not a new video (7 months old) but I haven't seen this video posted in this thread yet:

It has a cool video of an Armadillo capsule at the end.

swampcat · « **Reply #141 on:** 03/29/2011 07:35 am »

Word from a-rocket is that AA will attempt a launch of "Stig" to 100k' this weekend from Spaceport America.

Looking forward to the video.

beancounter · « **Reply #142 on:** 03/29/2011 07:50 am »

Bit of a pity seeing AA revert back to 'traditional' designs but guess there's a reason for that.

QuantumG · « **Reply #143 on:** 03/29/2011 08:34 am »

http://twitpic.com/4ehbld

Does that look traditional to you?

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #144 on:** 03/29/2011 11:49 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 03/29/2011 08:34 am

http://twitpic.com/4ehbld

Does that look traditional to you?

Yes.

A long thin tube with a point at one end with fins and nozzle at the other end. The tradition arrow.

edit: spelling

Jason1701 · « **Reply #145 on:** 03/30/2011 12:04 am »

Stig illustrates that beauty is certainly more than skin deep.

beancounter · « **Reply #146 on:** 03/30/2011 03:48 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/30/2011 12:04 am

Stig illustrates that beauty is certainly more than skin deep.

So what's the point in building and flying a 'traditional' stick with an engine that has the capability to hover or restart? What's the payload likely to be? What's the max diameter of the payload? They're questions that'll be answered eventually but my main question is why this particular development path?

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #147 on:** 03/30/2011 04:06 am »

Quote from: beancounter on 03/30/2011 03:48 am

Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/30/2011 12:04 am
Stig illustrates that beauty is certainly more than skin deep.

So what's the point in building and flying a 'traditional' stick with an engine that has the capability to hover or restart? What's the payload likely to be? What's the max diameter of the payload? They're questions that'll be answered eventually but my main question is why this particular development path?

It all depends on whether the Project M mini lunar lander is still alive.
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/future

hop · « **Reply #148 on:** 03/30/2011 04:06 am »

Quote from: beancounter on 03/30/2011 03:48 am

They're questions that'll be answered eventually but my main question is why this particular development path?

As armadillo have clearly explained, the primary purpose is to gain experience flying high and fast.

The appearance of the previous vehicles was also dictated by their intended missions...

Zapp · « **Reply #149 on:** 03/30/2011 08:04 am »

Quote from: hop on 03/30/2011 04:06 am

Quote from: beancounter on 03/30/2011 03:48 am
They're questions that'll be answered eventually but my main question is why this particular development path?
As armadillo have clearly explained, the primary purpose is to gain experience flying high and fast.

The appearance of the previous vehicles was also dictated by their intended missions...

"In the currently regulatory regime there is a significant gradation between a "class 3" vehicle that flies with less than 200,000 pound-seconds of impulse, under 150km, and unmanned, vs. one that exceeds that quantity of impulse, altitude, or is manned. Vehicles in the lower echelon can be operated under a waiver, whereas ones above require a launch license. The waiver is at least four times faster and easier to get than the license. That encourages us to learn as much as we can with a waivered vehicle before making the step up. "

kevin-rf · « **Reply #150 on:** 03/30/2011 12:41 pm »

With the Lox/Alcohol choice, kinda makes me nostalgic for Viking

Add two more stages and ...

Zapp · « **Reply #151 on:** 04/01/2011 06:04 am »

New update

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=374

yay

Jason1701 · « **Reply #152 on:** 04/01/2011 03:51 pm »

That was a great update. I hope they have a perfect flight.

simonbp · « **Reply #153 on:** 04/01/2011 10:36 pm »

And some sage advice from Carmack:

Quote

Essentially every single time you make a decision with "flight weight" as a deciding factor, you are making a mistake. Pushing for flying something instead of just doing test stand work is important, but you are many, many generations away from building some mass-ratio 8 vehicle where you are shaving every gram of weight. There is over an order of magnitude difference between what commercial orbital vehicles need to care about with respect to weight and what a new comer to experimental liquid rocketry should be caring about. A liquid fueled rocket can fly just fine with a mass ratio of 1.25.

Go for the solution that looks easiest, with almost no regard for performance. It will turn out not to be easy, but if you lowballed your expectations enough, you might actually succeed in making it fly, instead of winding up with a failed and abandoned project.

RocketEconomist327 · « **Reply #154 on:** 04/01/2011 10:46 pm »

I love what 'Dillo is doing...

LOVE IT.

VR
RE327

swampcat · « **Reply #155 on:** 04/02/2011 09:38 pm »

AA's John Carmack reports from NM via aRocket:

Quote

Initial attempt was scrubbed at the last minute when an uninvited party (a hunter) entered the exclusion zone.

Second attempt had startup transient problems. We continue to have startup problems in New Mexico that we don't have in Texas.

After cold soaking under the lox tank through these efforts, the batteries started to weaken, and we had to de-tank.

For reasons that aren't clear yet, WSMR closed the rest of our launch window today, and we may not get another opportunity until Tuesday, which sucks. We'll have plenty of time to look at the startup data...

Zapp · « **Reply #156 on:** 04/04/2011 08:35 am »

Neil Milburn's presentation at the suborbital vehicles session at the FAA conference back in February,link from spacetransportnews.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28366

bad_astra · « **Reply #157 on:** 04/07/2011 03:25 am »

With the latest delays from WSMR, it makes one wonder how the spaceport is going to be viable once it really gets underway, if there are constant delays from that range.

hokieSpace05 · « **Reply #158 on:** 04/09/2011 03:59 am »

I'm guessing they haven't fixed their engine startup issues? Or they are still under launch restrictions?

Anyone know?

swampcat · « **Reply #159 on:** 04/09/2011 11:22 am »

Quote from: hokieSpace05 on 04/09/2011 03:59 am

I'm guessing they haven't fixed their engine startup issues? Or they are still under launch restrictions?

Anyone know?

They went back to Texas. WSMR apparently wouldn't clear their launch from SA in the time they had available. No word yet on what the problem was from WSRM's POV, the start-up issues or about another attempt.