Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > John, why Cater to Nasa when they are so obviously wrong

John, why Cater to Nasa when they are so obviously wrong

Posted by: Dan Frederiksen - Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:28 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 53 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
John, why Cater to Nasa when they are so obviously wrong 
Author Message
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post A genius, no less !!   Posted on: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:37 pm
Wow, I really stepped in it, huh?

Well, you got me there Dan. I, most certainly, am not a genius. There's too much for me to see, do and learn to ever feel like I know it all.

Congratulations on reaching the pinnacle of knowledge. When I go to cash in my ass kissing points, I'll be sure to let John know what he's missing by not listening to you.

Wait for his call. I'm sure it will be coming soon.

Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA USA


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:08 am
Hehe ... funny thread

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 151
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:50 pm
Move it to the entertainment forum, perhaps? :)


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
User avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 17
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:56 pm
People get on NASA all the time because of their most visible endeavors. Has any of you looked into all of the other areas that NASA deals in?

Go to the NASA Tech Briefs site http://www.techbriefs.com/ and check out all the other stuff they are into. Every month they fill a magazine with study after study of all the different things they are doing.

NASA pays for the development of a technology, develops it into something that works, then sells it at a discount so American businesses can do something with it.

That is how Bigelow Aerospace got where it is. THey bought the Inflatable habitat technology from NASA and they are using it to great advantage.

Not EVERYTHING that NASA does is a clusterF... It is only in the super high ticket items that they have trouble making progress. But that is more about leveraging their money in my opinion. When you spend that much money, failures are catastrophic. So they go with the least possible risk they can afford.

As to AA getting a contract from NASA i think it is great that they are finally making some money for all of the awesome work they have done. I mean think about it. John Carmack is a long haired, computer geek, lives in his mom's basement type of guy (obviously sarcasm) with as far as i know, no Rocket Scientist Degree, and he built dozens of actual flying rockets that have done enough that people are willing to pay him money to keep doing it.

If that is not the American Dream, i don't know what is.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:34 pm
SGTalon, but that's just not good enough. the american dream is a stupid one and he passed that long ago when he bought his ferrari back in the day. and no doubt John is sharp. and it's precisely because he has ability and money that I address him. he is in a unique position to make a dent in this evil world.
you see excusable bureaucracy, I see evil intent. not that you will find any single head of the dragon in nasa or even outside. to avoid a philosophical debate you could say the incompetence has taken on a life of its own. if there isn't acute awareness of that evil I don't think efforts will ever be effective. it'll be distracted away from the worthy endeavours. delayed just long enough to take your life away. you have to be really angry.

reading back in the forum it sounds like John wanted to do some of what I suggest. light attempt at orbit, maybe even the moon. that would be awesome and each step would show the sheeple of the world how awful nasa is and shame the evil into compliance. but now AA is into a lunar jumper and rocket racing...
if it's a way to _quickly_ make some money while getting some more experience then sure. but is it..

just take a single aspect of Nasa like the space interferometers that can apparently gain enough resolution to take an actual picture of a planet outside our solar system. from what I understand such a system can be relatively light weight, which is the friend of rocketry. the nanosecond someone realized that taking a picture of a planet multiple light years away was possible and even cheap it should have been implemented poste haste at nasa. why isn't it..
imagine if AA had the anger to aim for something like that. join up with an ambitious university somewhere for the intereferometer hardware. maybe even get money for the project from Nasa since as Michael Moore said, they'll sell you the rope to hang them with. (the beast is not coherent).
no matter how small the scale, if AA were to attempt something like that it would send panic through the ranks that are so comfortable in betraying all the people in the world as they rob us of hope and progress. they can't afford to have a few punks from texas do what they can't do with 17bn$ a year.
just a small thing as I suggested, to put a video camera in orbit feeding live images all the time of the earth (perhaps with google's bandwidth) will make these bastards squirm. (you can make a network of cheap communication stations at universities around the world so the connection can be maintained to the satellite). a video satellite can weigh a matter of grams. with 5kg you can make it a spy satellite.

AA is not obligated to try to save the world. it's an option. it's a choice.
just remember, we reap the world we make.
it could be so great but is now so appalling. the last 30-40 years of stagnation is not an accident. it's our fault for laying down and taking it.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:51 am
Posts: 442
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe, Earth
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:50 pm
If this stagnation is NASA's fault (as you are trying to tell us), then why hasn't there been any _real_ progress outside NASA?


Newsflash: there are a whole bunch of "organisations" outside NASA, that can launch something into orbit (even "large" objects!) If NASA really is sitting on their "fat asses" and trying to keep their jobs safe and comfortable, then why is anyone else around the world affected as well?

I mean it is not like AA is the only Team outside NASA that is trying to get to space ...


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:30 am
Marcus, the same principle that governs nasa no doubt governs elsewhere as well. it's not news to me that many nations have space programs. nasa is just the biggest. and then most people don't spend a lot of time suspecting something to be wrong in space programs and just assume it's ok. so it goes on.
you could ask yourself why none of these countries have built an interferometer that could take pictures of potentially life supporting planets outside our solar system when it's apparently straight forward to do. or why no more has sent small probes to mars and other places. a small vehicle the size of an RC car could do better than Nasa's MER rovers. keeping it light makes it cheap (short of miniaturization).
and I think John agrees that mars and the moon is fairly straight forward rocket wise. As I hunch it, the math for correctly hitting the stellar objects in just the right way is the hardest part. if you have some money.
I thought I was being overly optimistic when I said 1000$ a ton for fuel but according to John some is even cheaper. something like 150$/ton of LOX/LNG which seems bizarrely cheap.
so I was surprised to see they had already burned through 1.5million in 2004. but I guess having money makes you impatient about money pinching.


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
User avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 17
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:47 pm
I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you there Dan.

To assign "Evil Intentions" to an organization like NASA is a slap in the face to some of our greatest Americans.

The simple fact is America has done some of the most amazing things in the areas of Aerospace (terrestrial and extra terrestrial) that have ever been done. I would be willing to bet that 75%-90% of the advances in aerospace was at least based on studies initiated by NASA. They have developed everything from rocket engines to velcro. And when they get it worked out sufficiently they sell the technology to American entreprenuers to develop into thriving businesses. THis does not sound like the efforts of an "Evil" organization. It sounds like one of the very few government beauracracies that actually contributes something tangible to the world. The only other one i can think of is the Post Office.

Sure they have problems with how much money they spend on getting things done, but when you add as many layers of checks and safety as they do it cost BIG bucks.

NASA is not evil. Darth Vader is Evil.... wait is he? I forget sometimes. Anyways, i guess what i am saying is just because NASA is no longer able to generate the biggest events in history anymore doesn't mean we should toss the whole thing in the trash. They do a lot more than just send billion dollar parts up to the space station. That is just the most visible part of NASA.


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 Aug 15, 2008 4:06 pm
Wait, is this yammerhead talking about the Lunar Lander challenge?

Isn't that a Gruman sponsored contest with the prizes AA is targeting equal to $2 million?

Hasn't AA bee the only ones even remotely capable of snatching up those prizes for the past two event?

I believe that the Lunar Lander challenge specifically states that none of the craft competing will ever be considered to be used as actual lunar landers. At best possibly some of the tech/techniques shown during the challenge may someday/maybe/possibly be incorporated into a lunar lander design but don't count on it. The whole point is to use a small amount of prize money to drive private industry.

I don't know maybe dan the yammerhead is talking about some other lunar lander work that AA is involved with. Now if he's talking about the Lunar Lander competition they've flown in two years running now this guys has got to be one of the biggest 'genius' morons I've read yet.

Man this place needs a 'popcorn' emoticon.
Well at least I got some good laughs here today.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:53 pm
TJ, I could be wrong but some of my comments were based on a vague recollection that AA sought a nasa contract a while back. I had the impression it was about the time they put a guy in a rocket hover thingy.

do you think Nasa is doing a good job?


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 Aug 15, 2008 8:45 pm
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
TJ, I could be wrong but some of my comments were based on a vague recollection that AA sought a nasa contract a while back. I had the impression it was about the time they put a guy in a rocket hover thingy.

do you think Nasa is doing a good job?


Good Lord, I hope nobody is paying you anything for your opinion. You're coming across as a complete idiot here and this post is truly cementing that concept.

AA is a private organization in search of making a profit using rocket technology.

Yes they are working with NASA on a methane engine
Yes they have sought Air Force Research Lab work, possibly a contract but they didn't succeed there
Yes they have competed in the completely unrelated Lunar Landing Challenge
Yes they have taken a contract with the Rocket Racing league
Yes they have taken a sponsorship from NVIDIA
Yes they are working on sub-orbital tourism concepts

All of that is part of the quest to become something ridiculously rare in regards to small rocket companies, they're attempting to become profitable.

John puts in somewhere between 20 and 40 hours a week into work at Armadillo. That is on top of the 40 hours a week he puts into programming at id Software and on top of whatever precious little time he spends with his family. Considering that Armadillo is a small company with less than 10 people working there, all basically part time it's absolutely incredible that they've managed to accomplish what they have done already.

Like many others here I'm a fan of Armadillo so I may be biased and somewhat unrealistic but personally I believe that Armadillo will successfully orbit a vehicle before NASA flies their shuttle replacement and I also believe that Armadillo will one day land someone on the moon.

I also truly fail to see any relevance to anything NASA is doing in regards to the goals and achievements of Armadillo. If NASA wants to pay them to build a methane engine that's fine. Its just another source of income that helps them accomplish their other goals. I may not be a genius (was told I was 2 points shy when I was a kid) but I do know that it takes a special kind of idiot to go shooting their mouth off without having any facts to back themselves up.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 266
Location: Denmark
Post    Posted on: Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:17 am
try to understand that what I'm suggesting here wont hurt AA, it will strengthen it tremendously. rocket hover looks cool but without the awareness of the world situation I don't think they will be able to change it.
if not it will just have been warm piss temporarily warming our pants.
it's statistically unlikely John can be both the talent, the money, the drive and on top of that the wisdom too. but it is worth suggesting.
don't you think your soul would soar when watching the live feed of the first orbital shot. altimeter rising, speed building, trajectory forming, the sky turning pitch black in the flickering video and the glowing ball reveals itself. nasa faces turning pale as the ratings exceed their own when all the closet idealists tune in. live HDTV video of the planet revolving running forever on google servers and any spare tv channels.
next stop the moon and then they really squirm. cold sweat of the impending comparison and whispers in the corners why nasa can't move as quickly with 17bn$ a year.
with every such (cheap) step I'm sure it can even attract it's own funding because I'm not alone with clearing eyes. Rutan is not too fond of Nasa. Paul Allen, Richard Branson, even Elon Musk although don't expect anything from him since his objection is selfish and can thus be 'bought'.
he will become part of the establishment if anything. the dark side I sense in him.

all I'm saying TJ is what you are actually hoping for. it's been 6 years already and if it took 1.5m$ already by 2004 then who knows how much now. let's go already.
John is the caliber person that if he could come to see the evil in this world and get angry he could make a real dent in it. but if he's [censored] around with toy rockets, we will wither and die and cities turn to dust before anything happens.
it's the nature of this world that if you are not vigilant it will tie you up with details just long enough to kill you.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post Current AA stuff   Posted on: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:13 am
Sorry for the lack of posts everybody. We have all been busy. There are three of us (Phil, Tommy and me) working full time now for AA. The rest are working full time at other jobs and part time AA, and with the current projects, it is hard to keep up. I wish I could assuage everyones need and update the site, but html is not one of my skills. You will have to wait for John... :-)

We have had two priorities as of late:

Current RRL work has been the biggest priority. As most already know, at the RRL's request we can not say anything about the current project or give out pics/vids. Really blows, but they are paying for it. I can say that things are going really well, our current lox alcohol engines are really doing well, and I hope the RRL will post some stuff soon, or will allow us to. I would not count on it though. I can say we are trying to make things happen for an air show sometime in Reno, I believe in September. I hope saying that doesnt get me in trouble!
Weather lately has made logistics tough, and you can not always test when the weather is bad. It is really a bummer when you are ready for something groundbreaking, and you cant do anything about it. It has been about the hardest project I have ever worked on, but also the most exciting. The RRL work has been good for AA though, as we currently have a really tough engine, improved ignition sequence, and an ever growing understanding of our current size engines. The hard starts are gone, efficiency is up to around 175 to 185+ ISP (I think I heard the guys say this number, could be wrong) and we have improved other aspects of the engines, such as the welding of the current injector assemblies.
The current engines have several buried critical welds that seperate lox and fuel, and if not done correctly can cause really bad problems during ops. We recently had a chamber pop off, not from a hard start, but 14 seconds into a run. Examination of the engine indicated that one of the welds likely had a pinhole or very small crack, allowing liquid to mix, and Bang! It threw the chamber and injector face about twenty five feet out, and left the manifold assembly attached. It was frustrating for me, but helped in that we put together a turntable that now allows me to perform a semi automatic weld on the injector parts (rather than fully hand welded) that is much better than I have ever achieved.
As for the bang, things ended well, all the safety interlocks shut the system down safely, and we had the rocket back together in short order. The chamber/injector face had all kinds of really cool deformation characteristics with lots of interesting things that happened from the bang, and it gave us ideas as to the weakness of the current design and allowed us to make some improvements. Good stuff.

NASA- The methane work has been on a back burner due to RRL work. We have been working on the engine, but have had limited success with it. The methane injector is quite different in design from lox alcohol engine. The guys feel it is really close, and we hope to have it working by next tuesday. If it works, we will fly it under one of the modules. It is really cool stuff though, and from Johns explanation to me, it will be really useful for upper stage work. A bit of brevity here though. I am a rocket welder, not a rocket scientist.

The LLC is also on the back burner, but we do expect the improvements from the RRL work to help there. We do still need to fly the Module and Pixel through their flight profiles and see if the engines actually work though.

Again- sorry for the lack of updates. I can only say we have been working really hard. John works harder than most, and updates/forums take precious time of which he has little to waste. He will get to it sometime though. Hopefully soon!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:01 am
Posts: 173
Location: Dallas, TX
Post Re: John, why Cater to Nasa when they are so obviously wrong   Posted on: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:24 am
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
you should be smart enough to realize that bringing up the space shuttle's 40ton dead weight each time is contrary to optimization of the rocket premise.


What on EARTH makes you think John DOESN'T realize this?

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
make a simple effective launch vehicle capable of bringing a minimum payload into LEO. it could be as little as 5kg. here's why it should be easy and cheap and you've probably spent much more already toying with your frankly irrelevant hover thing:


This comment is quite simply bizarre. If you think that Armadillo is not interested in such things and that the "hover thing" is irrelevant betrays that you simply haven't been paying attention to Armadillo's plans and goals.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
and how cool would it be with a 5kg satellite of your own sending down beautiful live HDTV pictures from orbit. so that the world can see what they don't want us to see.


Well, while that would be cool, we're probably going to have to jump through several important hoops to do so, not least of which might be NOAA's requirement of a license for photographing the Earth's surface from space. In the end, all we may simply do at first is what John has mentioned in the past: send out a simple signal to say, "here I am."

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
but first you have to realize there is a problem.


Once again, a major betrayal of your not paying attention. Armadillo, from the beginning, has been ALL ABOUT realizing that there is a problem, and trying to do something about it.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
however nice AAs work has been so far it will amount to nothing if they rely on Nasa since they are professional stallers managing only token progress.


Armadillo has no plans of "relying" on NASA. At the moment, they want to pay us for work that also benefits our future goals. Pure and simple.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
I am however suggesting that it's foolish to work on a lunar vehicle hoping nasa will take it there.


Armadillo has never for a second thought that anything we've done with NASA would get one of our Lunar Lander Challenge vehicles to the moon. The Lunar Lander Challenge is meant to spur progress in private companies seeking low-cost alternatives to space access, NOT to develop a lunar lander that is meant to go to the moon.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
John is having fun playing around with rockets. it's decent work but until he wakes up and realizes the gravity of the situation he will be entirely ineffective.


Why is it you think John is bothering to do this at all if not for realizing the gravity of the situation?

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
I'm a genius Marc.


I hate to go ad hominem here, but this is a pet peeve of mine: if you really are a genius, why have your posts shown that you have trouble comprehending Sentence Case?

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
the american dream is a stupid one and he passed that long ago when he bought his ferrari back in the day.


Huh?

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
but now AA is into a lunar jumper and rocket racing...
if it's a way to _quickly_ make some money while getting some more experience then sure. but is it..


That's pretty much exactly what it is. Reading anything more into it is tinfoil hat territory.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
and I think John agrees that mars and the moon is fairly straight forward rocket wise.


Theoretically? Perhaps. In practice? I don't think John would agree with that at all.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
it's been 6 years already and if it took 1.5m$ already by 2004 then who knows how much now. let's go already.


It's been about 8 years and ~3 million dollars, and if you think that what Armadillo has done in that time with that amount of money is worthy of scorn, then I simply have no response to that.

Dan Frederiksen wrote:
but if he's [censored] around with toy rockets, we will wither and die and cities turn to dust before anything happens.


Once again, if you think "[censored] around" with "toy" rockets is what Armadillo Aerospace is about, you've failed to understand Armadillo on a fundamental level.

I can only gather from this whole thread that you think that Armadillo's involvement with NASA is somehow an indicator of "caving in" to NASA's way of doing things. Armadillo's involvement with NASA is strictly utilitarian: they have a need they're willing to pay us to research, and what they want to research directly benefits Armadillo's future orbital plans. Reading into this any more than that is simply silliness.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:16 pm
Well, you can't argue with that....

Or can you....

Waiting Dan's diatribe with baited breath!!


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ] 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


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