Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Armadillo suspense

Armadillo suspense

Posted by: TJ - Sun May 16, 2004 2:16 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 134 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Armadillo suspense 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:33 pm
The commentators also said that they also have to get Pixel back on the truck after the second flight and bring it back to the flight line within that 2.5 hour time frame. :?:


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:38 pm
Posts: 4
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:39 pm
Was that 90 seconds?


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:44 pm
I didn't time it, put I bet they did. Since they have enough propellant capacity for 180 seconds I can't believe they would cut it close on the 90 second flight.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:54 pm
:( There will not be a 2nd flight. Something about damage on landing. :(


Last edited by campbelp2002 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:38 pm
Posts: 4
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:54 pm
ok, so, the talking head never shut up long enough to let john say what happened........ did anyone catch why it wasn't successfull?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:56 pm
damage to one landing leg and some sort of fire that may have damaged electronics.

No second flight, it seems. :(


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:56 pm
Damage on landing. And they did confirm 90+ seconds on the flight. Seems like their main problems at X cup have been landing gear problems!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 51
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:58 pm
Hard landing broke a leg. Small fire burned some of the electronics. Can't try for the second flight.

I wonder if they'll try to fly texel tomorrow. Probably tethered, I doubt they would attempt part 2 of the challenge without having ever flown the vehicle.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:59 pm
You know it's sadly comical but John's assessment of Armadillo embarrassing the big name contractors was spot on. Here I was thinking for years that the DC-X had done that for 10 million or so, yet John and his crew have come very close to equaling the DC-X for 200K.

He's absolutely right, they should be very embarrassed.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:35 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Michigan
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:10 pm
Quote:
You know it's sadly comical but John's assessment of Armadillo embarrassing the big name contractors was spot on. Here I was thinking for years that the DC-X had done that for 10 million or so, yet John and his crew have come very close to equaling the DC-X for 200K.


And it was that comment that ended the interview. It figures.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:38 pm
Posts: 4
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:14 pm
it was still an impressive feat.

Congrats John, and crew!!!!

(at least the electronics were burnt, and not shaken!)
/rick


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:14 pm
While the shuttle and ISS have cost way more that they should have, I don't think that is true of DC-X. That vehicle cost only 50 times what Armadillo’s vehicle cost and it was hydrogen powered, much larger and not built with free volunteer labor. DC-X is actually a model of how space could be done IMO. The fact that DC-X got cancelled is where the shame is in that program.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:17 pm
BitBanger wrote:
Quote:
You know it's sadly comical but John's assessment of Armadillo embarrassing the big name contractors was spot on. Here I was thinking for years that the DC-X had done that for 10 million or so, yet John and his crew have come very close to equaling the DC-X for 200K.


And it was that comment that ended the interview. It figures.


But quite right :), however with my own experiance, a company existing for several years always requires more money to do the same, due to more costs like, actually paying people as they should receive for their work, education programs, marketing and other investments etc. However with the work John did.. I think indeed it can be done at a lower cost, but I think for a larger company, it will be about 5 Million us$ or so. But maybe for that smaller similar as Armadillo Aerospace inventive companies are important.

EDIT: I see campbelp2002 posted just before me.. I have to agree with him, also remember DC-X didn't had the tools available today.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 51
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:45 pm
Quote:
You know it's sadly comical but John's assessment of Armadillo embarrassing the big name contractors was spot on. Here I was thinking for years that the DC-X had done that for 10 million or so, yet John and his crew have come very close to equaling the DC-X for 200K.


It takes another 9.8 million to get the big explosion on landing. :P


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:03 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
While the shuttle and ISS have cost way more that they should have, I don't think that is true of DC-X. That vehicle cost only 50 times what Armadillo’s vehicle cost and it was hydrogen powered, much larger and not built with free volunteer labor. DC-X is actually a model of how space could be done IMO. The fact that DC-X got cancelled is where the shame is in that program.


As you said the only shame for the DC-X was that it got canceled. I definitely agree that they showed how a program should be run. Unfortunately nobody paid any attention then. Maybe Armadillo will change that.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  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