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
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: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:36 pm
Thanks Matthew, now I don't feel guilty about all the stuff I neglected in my post.

This certainly gave me a good chuckle on a Monday morning.


About the only thing I would add at this point to Dan and all the other self proclaimed 'geniuses' out there looking to criticize AA and all of the other companies and people out there working their butts off on the front lines of this new dawning era of about to be space exploration/exploitation, exactly what have you done in this area?


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:18 pm
I cannot remember where I heard this:

"You either believe you can or cannot, either way you are right."

Funny how human nature causes us to need to be in the right. Some are more correct than others. I speak from experience of usually being wrong. I learn everyday. Being smart helps, but a healthy dose of persistence and determination can get you there too. And I get to learn a lot on the way.

Dan- you are right. I doubt you will waiver from this stance, and I will not try to convince you.

Nasa- There are a lot of people there that realize the situation. It is not completely rotten from the core out. Lots of people that work there do so in the hopes of actually contributing and participating in the dream of space. Some things do actually happen, My negativity tends to blind me when it comes to bureaucracy. I have certainly sided with people such as yourself on many occasions. If you feel bad about it, try to change it. Putting the blame and/or responsibility on others achieves nothing if you do not commit to it.

As for John, I think he has a pretty good approach for the direction AA is going. He is not always right, but then who is. He does better than most though.

Believe what you want and need, make your direction, and do something more than just talk. Good luck!

Enough petty tribal chest beating. Time to get to work!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:35 pm
Hello, Matthew Ross,

you answered Dan Frederiksen that
Quote:
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.
.

Because of this as well as because I apply Pixel in a thread in the Financial Barriers section to experimentally calculate possible costs of private lunar trips applying privately developed and built vehicles... - because of this all this causes me the question if and to what degree the vehicles under development for the LLC are really capable of landing safely on the Moon from any orbit.

May be that the vehicles are meant only to lift from the lunar surface to a safe altitude, fly a distance and then land again. This would be a pendant to earthian airplanes and thus mean vehicles capable of transportation across the lunar surface.

Regardless of John's comments to Richard Speck as well as of the comments of others Richard Speck says that the lander Micro Space is working on can land on the Moon from the orbit as well as return into it after refuelling. If that's valid for Pixel and Texel - or their replacements/substitutes - as well you are developing vehicles that really and indeed are capable of landing on the Moon. There only would be a lack of someone carrying them there.

What about it?

Later you answered
Quote:
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.
.

This I like to read and here about. It's very positive and entrepreneurial. It reminds me to some of your competitors at the Ansari XPRIZE and the LLC as well.

Hello, James Bauer,

what do you think regarding my question above?





Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:28 am
Ekkehard Augustin-
"if and to what degree the vehicles under development for the LLC are really capable of landing safely on the Moon from any orbit. "

AA is not trying to build an actual lunar landing capable vehicle (yet). The modules and Pixel are capable of flying the LLC profile, but their main purpose beyond that is to further our abilities to get to space. They have yet to fly fast and high and come back and land. Our LLC vehicles simply are not capable of landing on the moon. They are not built for that. They were built to meet the requirements of the LLC here on earth. Actually landing on the moon is completely different from the LLC challenge, and will require vehicles designed with additional requirements. (Lower gravity, star tracking instead of gps, vacuum, higher/lower temperatures, rad hardened, etc)


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post Welding Testing   Posted on: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:36 am
Hi James,

Do you do any kind of close inspection on the welds? How do you inspect for things like the tiny crack you mentioned (on the engine that blew up recently) or pits/holes? Is it all visual or do you use some other method? Flouroscope?

Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:19 am
MarcHopkins-
"Do you do any kind of close inspection on the welds? How do you inspect for things like the tiny crack you mentioned (on the engine that blew up recently) or pits/holes? Is it all visual or do you use some other method? Flouroscope?"

In general, anything that holds pressure will be fully visually inspected after welding. We fully visually inspect our tank root welds prior to cap passes, and if incomplete, the root weld is cut out and repaired. The injector cross-ring welds are also fully inspected but the welds are much smaller, and require using a magnifying glass (at least for me).

Testing for pitting:
Usually xray or ultrasound is required to detect this. We have looked around, but it gets expensive quick. And xraying a 3+ ft diameter tank is pretty difficult. In general we have a pretty thorough cleaning of parts before welding to insure elimination of pin-holing.

We have not used other types of NDT (Non Destructive Testing), due to costs from initial setup, training, and large differences in part sizes and geometry and materials. Visual inspection works pretty well for what we do though.


Back to top
Profile WWW
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 21, 2008 12:16 am
James, I am happy to hear you agree with me somewhat but it's a cop out to just say I should do it. there are so many problems in this world that I can see that it's unreasonable to expect me to fix it. 'just talk' is underappraciated. you are the guys who are working on rockets, you are the guys who have the money, you are the ones in need to know the situation. you need to let the truth mandate your actions. when you say things like I should do it instead of you you have become exactly like Nasa. don't you see? where is the urgency in your minds? where is the efficacy that matters.

it's been six years and there is no indication that you will do anything that matters ever. you can be angry at me for saying so but you'd be wrong to do so because it's the truth.
if John is busy at ID these days that's ok but when that's over you need to march up to John and relentlessly impress on him that you need to go NOW. if not now you are just one more nail in the coffin of betrayal of mankind. WAKE UP!


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:00 am
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
James, I am happy to hear you agree with me somewhat but it's a cop out to just say I should do it.

I disagree- expecting others to respond to and fix your frustrations will inevitably lead to more frustration when they do not perform in the manner you want.
AA is trying to reinvent space access the way we think it should be done. We have our path and are following it. Fixing NASA is not on our list.
I still feel you could make a dent or change things at least on some level. But I also think fixing NASA is a lost cause, there are other directions that would be a more worthwhile investment.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
there are so many problems in this world that I can see that it's unreasonable to expect me to fix it.

Then you are parallel in thought to Armadillo. AA can not fix everything. We have chosen to concentrate on our path to space access. We take it a notch at a time. We pursue directions that are inside our groups skill set, with what available resources we have access to. We will eventually make it to space. It may not be as fast as liked, but it will happen. That is the problem we want to fix, not everything else.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
'just talk' is underappraciated. you are the guys who are working on rockets, you are the guys who have the money, you are the ones in need to know the situation.

We are working pretty darn hard. We do not have much money. John had a limited budget for AA. It dried up last year by XPrize Cup 07. We just squeezed through due to various contracts and grants we had received from various sources, NASA being one of them.
I think most everyone, John especially, realizes that NASA can no longer offer any significant cost effective and safe space access.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
you need to let the truth mandate your actions. when you say things like I should do it instead of you you have become exactly like Nasa. don't you see? where is the urgency in your minds? where is the efficacy that matters.

Reality has mandated our actions. AA was formed as the direct result of the dilemma of NASA and overall space access. As for the urgency, we want to get to space as soon as we can. But it will be in a way that is:
safe
cost effective
quick
realistic
I am not like NASA at all, and I still disagree that you stepping up and trying to change things will not be effective. There are plenty of people out there that can not take it anymore and just have to get out and make things happen. You CAN make a difference a whatever level you can manage or wish to. Be it NASA or some other cause, you just have to do it.
I would venture that you will be disappointed with AA when it does not abandon work for NASA altogether. I hope you will eventually see AA changing NASA completely when AA succeeds in putting a sputnik type vehicle in orbit with a very small group of people. There will be big changes as a result. Until then, I expect few people and/or organizations will take AA very seriously. I am here to try and change things- to effect what future I want and can influence. It is very urgent to me. Most that know us realize that we are not "just talk". We are serious about our plans.
I am sure you do see some of AA's achievements, based on your posts, but that your overall anger and frustration shows when you say:
"it's been six years and there is no indication that you will do anything that matters ever."
I do not think you are angry at AA directly, but your overall frustration of the industry is pretty evident.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
you can be angry at me for saying so but you'd be wrong to do so because it's the truth.

I am not angry. I admire your passion and acknowledge your frustration. I hope that you can minimize one in pursuit of the other.
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
if John is busy at ID these days that's ok but when that's over you need to march up to John and relentlessly impress on him that you need to go NOW. if not now you are just one more nail in the coffin of betrayal of mankind. WAKE UP!

I disagree on it being ok that John should be excused from AA for working at iD. I feel that space access is far more important than video game entertainment for our future. I am sure there are a lot that would disagree with me though. I was practically born and raised computer wise on wolfenstien 3d and doom. But space has become far more of a desire to me. I do look forward to when we reach actual orbit. As for impressing on John the need to go, no one knows more the urgency of the situation. He already knows.
AA will get to space. It may not be as fast as everyone would like, but we will get there.
As for mankind (my girlfriend would say "HUMANKIND!") there are many others that will betray it for their gain. I hope you realize worrying about it will get you old way too fast. If it is your fight, pursue it to your best.


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: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:12 pm
James Bauer wrote:
AA will get to space. It may not be as fast as everyone would like, but we will get there.


Go for it. Of course it's not as fast as most people would like, but it's as fast as you are able to do it (otherwise, it would be faster!), and most people appreciate that!

As for working at ID (how dare he!)I guess Mr Carmack has to work at something that earns money before spending it all on rockets!! Same with NASA and other contracts - these things are needed to pay for other stuff (and are useful in themselves)

Its all very well exhorting people to speed up and get the job done (because its not being done as fast as YOU want, or in the way that YOU want), but the money (and time) has to come from somewhere, and genetic engineering has yet to come up with a money tree.

And to emphasis what James B said - individuals can make a difference - I thought about voluteering to help Starchaser a few years back - even had a face to face with the boss there. (a 4 hr drive each way just for weekend work was a bit much with a family to look after)! Dan - find out what YOU can do to help - you're the one who wants things faster and done your way, so YOU have to do something about it. If it's not coming to you, you go to it.

James H


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:52 pm
Hello, James Bauer,

you among other comments answered to me that
Quote:
Actually landing on the moon is completely different from the LLC challenge, and will require vehicles designed with additional requirements. (Lower gravity, star tracking instead of gps, vacuum, higher/lower temperatures, rad hardened, etc)
.

How much hardware weight would be added to get Pixel fit for an actual lunar landing? How much more kg of propellant would that mean? What would be the according data for Texel?

At vpresent it is not clear to me if Armadillo Aerospace are going to compete for the Google Lunar XPRIZE. If yes would Pixel or Texel be applied and made fit for the landing? Or is another approach preferred?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:30 am
Posts: 213
Location: USA
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:33 pm
I believe that he already answered the question of their current hardware's ability to land on the moon. It can't. modified or otherwise. The modifications would in effect make it a whole different vehicle. I applaud that they are building hardware that will allow them to simply achieve orbit. There is no sense in promising the moon when you can't even leave earth.

Good job of keeping it real AA!

Can't wait for the first time you run a module vertical to depletion. It would make a great crash video and provide AA with loads of data to mull over for future high speed flights.

thanks for jumping in this thread James. Wisdom from the welder.. who knew?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:21 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Baltimore, MD
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:45 pm
James Bauer wrote:
Ekkehard Augustin-
"if and to what degree the vehicles under development for the LLC are really capable of landing safely on the Moon from any orbit. "

AA is not trying to build an actual lunar landing .... Our LLC vehicles simply are not capable of landing on the moon. They are not built for that....


I think the important point here is "VEHICLES", not "MOTORS". The LLC *IS* designed to produce rocket MOTORS (and other system components) capable of landing a vehicle on the moon, not to arrive at a moon lander. The work AA is doing is VERY relavent for the total moon systems. PIXEL is not designed to land on the moon, but the very nature of the LLC is that the motors it is using could be put into a real lunar lander. I'd recommend anybody interested in this topic to go actually read the LLC rules and goals:
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge/
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-ch ... _rules.php

Emory Stagmer
Project Software Lead for NASA's LCROSS system


Back to top
Profile WWW
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 21, 2008 8:14 pm
James, I have way too much experience trying to reach the obtuse to think that I can reach you now but just in case. I never said I would be ineffective at anything. just that I can't fix everything wrong with this world on my own. and yes it does frustrate me having to endure such blatant mistakes as that.
I further deplore your general obtuseness, this default position of not listening to external reason. some misguided assumption that you are the daddy because you work at AA and I am a misguided child that you grace with your presence.
it's painfully obvious that there is no urgency in either you or John or you would start to make actual plans for an ultra light orbital shot. as for money, if he had urgency he would spend more but I don't think it's needed to spend more. however much you have achieved it seems to have been done rather cost ineffectively. I take it you have plowed through several million dollars? if that's the case that's very unimpressive. surely much more can be done for much less if the talent is there as it seems to be.
let's say a 1ton rocket can get to orbit, shouldn't you guys with no sallaries be able to build a rocket that size for very little money?
if you had any urgency it would have been done long ago. think!

you have the engine tech, slap 3 stages on top of eachother. that's it. the fuel cost is negligible, carbon fiber cloth for tanks is not all that expensive.
you could probably even use glassfiber.
what are you waiting for? and don't outsource because companies are inevitably money pits. do it yourself. use designs you can make with sallary free time. why is simple logic so hard..


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 Aug 21, 2008 10:06 pm
Hehe... still think my reply was too harsh, James?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:09 am
These days I prefer to lurk
It helps me focus on my work
But this guy Dan's a total jerk
Boot him Sigurd, clear the murk

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


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 8 guests


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