Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Official Armadillo Q&A thread

Official Armadillo Q&A thread

Posted by: John Carmack - Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:01 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 2523 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 169  Next
Official Armadillo Q&A thread 
Author Message
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Edmond, OK
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:16 am
When are you planning on building and test firing the 24" engine?

What was the hang up on getting the 90% distiller working? How come you couldn't get someone to run it and make you as much as you wanted?
http://www.tecaeromex.com/ingles/destilai.html

I remember you saying something about FMC wanting you to buy a large amount of 90%.

What if you contact FMC and have them send you a tank car load worth of 90% to your local side track or rail yard and any time you need any, you can go over there and siphon some off. ;)

Image

It's only ~20,000 gallons worth. I know your good for that. :wink:

Image

Or one of these and keep it at your test site?


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:21 am
Posts: 27
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:51 am
wormhole wrote:
i know mr Carmack would be well aware of the british efforts with HTP from the 50's to 70's ....
having lifted thier first Satellite the rocket engineers found that politicians
were too dense to follow.


Getting a satellite to orbit is nothing compared to getting a politician to turn round... :lol: and it's still up there :)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am
Posts: 322
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:56 pm
Black Arrow's ground support equipment was negligable compare to that needed by the Delta IV or the Ariane.


Back to top
Profile YIM
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:06 am
Posts: 147
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:29 am
Ryan,

If I remember correctly, FMC refused to sell to Armadillo.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Edmond, OK
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:44 am
April 8 and 12, 2003 Meeting Notes

Quote:
We had really hoped to get off one good altitude flight before running dry, but we just didn’t make it. We have been in conservation mode for months now, leaving a 4,000 lbf monoprop and 1,000 lbf biprop engine sitting on the floor, because we wanted to save all our peroxide for flight tests instead of engine tests. The biggest strategic error I have made was not going ahead and becoming an anchor tenant for X-L Space systems instead of letting them shut down. It was a tough decision, because we would have had to be purchasing peroxide for nearly a year before we really needed the extra volume, which would have meant sitting on a big storage tank. At the time, I also still thought it was going to be reasonably easy to deal with FMC once they realized we were a serious customer making >$100,000 orders.

Our Degussa sales rep was ready to sell to us, but once it went to their legal department, we hit the same wall as with FMC. We have made in-person visits to their corporate offices, and we are just finishing up a full presentation for FMC and Degussa about our company, our plans, and why it is in their best interest to sell us peroxide, but there is no firm list of actions that we can take that will guarantee a proper response from them.

I am funding a small operator to begin running a concentrator for us, which will get us back in the air, but they can’t possibly provide the quantity we need for the X-Prize flights (10,000 gallons or so for the full development program).


http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/A ... ews_id=200


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:58 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Washington, D.C., USA
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:19 pm
I don't have any more questions, but wanted to congratulate John for being rated as cooler than Burt Rutan by Wired in this month's issue. :lol:


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:21 am
Posts: 27
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:56 pm
John

Have you considered building an arch-type frame for suspended tests, rather than hiring cranes in?


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:34 am
Posts: 126
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:35 pm
Thanks for the notes on vehicle size, that should be good daydream fuel for quite a while. You mention all the numbers for 63'' tanks, I noticed, but you've just switched over to the 48'' tank, why is this? Do you plan on switching back to 63'' tanks for the manned vehicles, and the 48'' one is just a testbed?

Would you care to speculate what tomorrow's announcement will be about? Does Scaled pretty much have the X Prize in their bag?

_________________
"Yes, that series of words I just said made perfect sense!"
-Professor Hubert Farnsworth


Last edited by Senior Von Braun on Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Edmond, OK
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:36 pm
Jon Wharf, from the January 7 and 11, 2003 Meeting notes:

Quote:
After much debate, we have decided to do the hover tests of the new propulsion system with the system suspended from a crane. We originally planned to hack on some temporary landing gear and fly it like our previous vehicles, but the bottom bulkhead is so tightly packed that it would turn into a bigger project than it is worth. Joseph’s Bobcat is fine for our drop tests, but it can’t get enough total height for a decent hover test. We talked about fabricating various tower and cable arrangements, but just renting a small crane for a few hundred dollars turns out to be much easier and cheaper.


http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/A ... ews_id=189


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:43 am
Posts: 3
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:48 am
Hey John Carmack did you use H2O2+kerosen for propellant? How can i find the inner drawings?I want to learn the work princip of that rocket.

_________________
Pyrochemist


Back to top
Profile ICQ WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 11
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:46 am
The suspense is killing me... how did Tuesday's hover test go? Or has Bad Stuff happened?

kno3, I think they're using a 50% peroxide/methanol mix. The advantage of methanol is that it burns catalytically with hot platinum, which IIRC is their current catalyst. All the information you could want is available in their news archive at http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News , although sometimes they've changed approach so many times it's hard to figure out what's current :) I may try and come up with a sketch of the current arrangement at some point from what I can glean from their notes, but don't expect it anytime soon :)


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:26 am
Posts: 44
Location: Switzerland
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:26 pm
Rowan B wrote:
The suspense is killing me... how did Tuesday's hover test go? Or has Bad Stuff happened?

Same here... :)

Rowan B wrote:
kno3, I think they're using a 50% peroxide/methanol mix. The advantage of methanol is that it burns catalytically with hot platinum, which IIRC is their current catalyst. All the information you could want is available in their news archive at http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News , although sometimes they've changed approach so many times it's hard to figure out what's current :) I may try and come up with a sketch of the current arrangement at some point from what I can glean from their notes, but don't expect it anytime soon :)

If you do this, you can safe some work by basing it on this cutaway drawing of their 7" engine that John posted two weeks ago (update no. 269):
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2004_08_18/engineCutaway.jpg

_________________
For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. - Henry Louis Mencken


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:01 am
Posts: 173
Location: Dallas, TX
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:42 pm
Rowan B wrote:
Or has Bad Stuff happened?


John can elaborate if he wishes, but I will say that it was the opposite of Bad Stuff. It's awfully soggy here in Texas, but the ground was very dry so hopefully it'll all soak up and we'll get out to the 100 acres on Saturday.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 11
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:49 pm
Great news - I'm looking forward to next Monday's update more than usual!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 7
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:56 pm
I agree that it is a little tough to backtrack and puzzle out what the fuel mix and engine configuration looks like - based on the Armadillio News postings. But I also don't think it's John C.'s responsibility to lay it all out for the Fan-Boy press. ;-) We can work it out ourselves, right?

Here's my contribution to the group think on a diagram or layout of the spaceship:

I think the fuel mix is 4:1. They use 50% H2O2 and Methanol with a tank pressure of about 100 to 300 psi (is that right?). It is self-pressurized and flows down a tube into the throttle valve and engine. If the pictures tell a story the fule line runs down through the center of the crew-cabin on the new "cabin below" spaceship.

Two catalyst packs (hot and cold) do the work of breaking down the H2O2 and Methanol. (Which one breaks down to which elements in each pack?)

Ignition is done with sparkplugs, but they still need a flame holder to keep the reaction going - right?

A single engine and nozzel is centered below the crew cabin and the exhaust flows through a grouping of four vector vanes. There are no other reaction control thrusters on the rocket.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2523 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 169  Next

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use