Author Topic: Armadillo Aerospace Update Thread (Read 244738 times)

corrodedNut · « **Reply #60 on:** 07/06/2010 12:46 pm »

"A flight to 2000ft AGL of an Armadillo Aerospace "Mod" VTVL rocket, with a shiny new actuated roll vane, 2010/06/22.

Rather than using cold gas thrusters to move the vehicle around the vertical axis (roll), an aerodynamic surface is actuated to provide roll. In the split screen, it's the aluminum plate on the right; the camera is pointed straight up. The view on the left is looking straight down, to show the roll orientation over time."

corrodedNut · « **Reply #61 on:** 07/06/2010 01:26 pm »

I'll try and put recent Mod vehicle flights in the correct order:

June 5- Free flight to 2000', engine shutdown, drogue deploy and release, restart.

Video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20233.msg602376#msg602376

June 22- Free flight to 2000' with aerodynamic roll control vane. Non-consequential, inadvertent drogue deploy.

Video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20233.msg615226#msg615226

June 27- Possible flight to 6000' ?? with "a new multi-point drogue attachment and cutaway system"

EDIT: June 26 flight to 2000' see post below with video.

Pictures here: http://twitpic.com/20an6z and http://twitpic.com/20asq4

P.S. Fins are back, baby!!! (well, sort of)

corrodedNut · « **Reply #62 on:** 07/11/2010 12:47 am »

"The second engine-out flight, from June 26th, 2010. This time the drogue is attached at four individual points for more stability. This cut also shows the vane controlling roll."

corrodedNut · « **Reply #63 on:** 07/11/2010 04:10 am »

Same flight, different video:

"A flight of the Armadillo Aerospace "Mod" vehicle on 2010.06.26. This was the first flight test of a four-point drogue attachment system, which increases the stability of the system when falling with the engine off."

The far right camera angle, looking from the pad up, you can really see how well the vehicle corrects its self after re-light.

Zapp · « **Reply #64 on:** 08/12/2010 11:01 am »

A new update at
http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=371

maitri982 · « **Reply #65 on:** 08/15/2010 02:07 am »

You know, many New Space fans like myself have been following SpaceX closely as they have the potential to open up Space Access at much lower prices than previously possible.

But after seeing the current progress of Armadillo I am beginning to wonder if I bet on the wrong horse for a significant reduction in space access that could make it possible for only moderately well off people to get there...and I don't mean suborbital either.

These guys are doing some great work. I look forward to their starting to fly actual people to suborbit and then taking the big leap to space. i wonder if Carmack has any ideas already what he could sell that ticket for and still make money?

Kevin

corrodedNut · « **Reply #66 on:** 09/02/2010 01:17 pm »

New ProjectM video:

"This video shows the third free flight of the Project M lander out at Armadillo Aerospace."

Here's the ProjectM channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAProjectM#p/u

corrodedNut · « **Reply #67 on:** 09/14/2010 12:06 pm »

New tether test video:

"Includes induced perturbations to test recovery from aerodynamic impulses, and the telescopic legs extending at the end. We were ready to free-flight after this test, but a two-hour FAA hold would have put us too late in the day. Will probably try for the free flight later today."

See Armadillo's channel:

http://www.youtube.com/armadilloaerospace

Robotbeat · « **Reply #68 on:** 09/14/2010 10:53 pm »

Now that looks like a space ship!

Lars_J · « **Reply #69 on:** 09/14/2010 11:17 pm »

Very nice... Although it seems like the legs should be 50% longer.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #70 on:** 09/14/2010 11:20 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/14/2010 11:17 pm

Very nice... Although it seems like the legs should be 50% longer.

I think they're assuming they will land on concrete.

simonbp · « **Reply #71 on:** 09/15/2010 01:38 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/14/2010 10:53 pm

Now that looks like a space ship!

Indeed; amazing the difference a little bodywork can make.

savuporo · « **Reply #72 on:** 09/15/2010 01:49 am »

How many of you still remember this ?

http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2004_06_15/perfectBoostedHop.mpg

zaitcev · « **Reply #73 on:** 09/16/2010 05:57 pm »

Does anyone know why they use 4 pneumatic legs and not 3 or 5? If one leg fails to deploy, 3 others won't save the vehicle from tilting. Might as well either use 3 for mass savings or 5 for a degree of redundancy. But 4 is the worst choice. In case of old MOD, the 4 legs formed a structure that allowed for easy transport on a truck, I imagine. But now a supporting structure is necessary anyway. Or take another case, Masten had an airframe with 4 members, so 4 legs made structural sense for ease of design and building. None of this applies to new aeroshell MOD. I do not understand this design decision. Anyone has a good guess?

-- Pete

jabe · « **Reply #74 on:** 09/16/2010 06:22 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/14/2010 11:17 pm

Very nice... Although it seems like the legs should be 50% longer.

My thoughts exactly...hope they land on flat ground or the engine may get nose full of dirt

jb

edit: check here for close up of it

oh..and their youtube channel now has the just done untethered flight now up...
http://www.youtube.com/armadilloaerospace

corrodedNut · « **Reply #75 on:** 09/17/2010 12:36 am »

Seen this "original" version yet?

Is this the first free-flight take off with the 'stand off' tubes? It looks like it leans a little for half a second after ignition, and bounces bit more than usual at landing.

"This is the view from the west side of the pad looking east. It's taken from an HD camcorder turned on its side to get a taller view of the take off and landing. The landing portion shows a nice view of the legs deploying. Best viewed in HD on a big monitor. In fact, if you choose "original" from the resolution pull-down, and you're lucky to have a 30-in. monitor, you're seeing this video in 1600 pixel vertical resolution!"

Cinder · « **Reply #76 on:** 09/17/2010 01:28 am »

I must be missing something. I only see 1080p as highest resolution.

edit - Have to watch it on the actual youtube page.

beancounter · « **Reply #77 on:** 09/17/2010 01:29 am »

Where would people say Marsten and Armadillo are at present in relation to each other's progress.
Marsten was more accurate landing in the comp' but with respect to their technology, it seems like they're running pretty much neck and neck.
Any thoughts?

DanielW · « **Reply #78 on:** 09/17/2010 03:38 am »

Quote from: zaitcev on 09/16/2010 05:57 pm

Does anyone know why they use 4 pneumatic legs and not 3 or 5? If one leg fails to deploy, 3 others won't save the vehicle from tilting. Might as well either use 3 for mass savings or 5 for a degree of redundancy. But 4 is the worst choice. In case of old MOD, the 4 legs formed a structure that allowed for easy transport on a truck, I imagine. But now a supporting structure is necessary anyway. Or take another case, Masten had an airframe with 4 members, so 4 legs made structural sense for ease of design and building. None of this applies to new aeroshell MOD. I do not understand this design decision. Anyone has a good guess?

-- Pete

Actually 4 seems a good choice to me. You assume that there is a significant chance of one leg failing to deploy. It is not a significant threat at all. They all run off the ullage pressure. If one does not deploy then they all probably did not. The craft would probably be salvageable in case of a tip-over. AA's rockets are next to bullet proof. Highly reliable system = no need for five legs.

Four does however give a significant increase in stability over three. At this point in their testing they just need to go fast in the thick part of the atmosphere to get a handle on dynamics. Mass fraction and performance are not a big issue until they got for 100km. For now not having to bang dents out of tanks outweighs mass savings.

Though truthfully, their landings are accurate enough that three legs would probably be sufficient. I do think that four was a good decision for a first go at a new technique.

simonbp · « **Reply #79 on:** 09/17/2010 03:43 am »

The staged deployment makes it kinda look like stop-motion animation!

@zaitcev: orthogonal structures are easier to design/build than isometric