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
John, why Cater to Nasa when they are so obviously wrong 
Author Message
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 1
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:06 pm
Wow,

Dan - not sure what your issue is but you sure seem to like telling other people how THEY should run their endeavors. Perhaps, if it is as easy and inexpensive as you believe it is, YOU should put your efforts towards making this progress instead of spending time berating others for their approach.

AA - while I truely miss the regular updates I understand both the time pressures and RRL restrictions you are operating under. Thank you all for the information you have so graciously shared over the years. I look forward to watching you compete in both the LLC and the RRL.


Back to top
Profile
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: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:50 pm
Blimey.

Everyone can relax. It appears that Dan already has some sort of space flight sorted, because he certainly isn't on this planet.

In fact, what he has shown so far is a complete lack of understanding of how this planet works!! Perhaps on planet Dan (I don't know its real name) it's useful to insult the people you are trying to advise, or constantly tell the people who are doing the job (and the ones with the money to spend) that they are doing it wrong. Not on Earth though, as far as I know.

;-)

James


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:50 am
Posts: 265
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:00 am
VAXHeadroom wrote:
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 point I see is that Ekkehard really did think that these vehicles had a extremely close resemblance to a lunar lander, and someone actually building them is telling you that actually they don't.
The challenge can claim to be themed around a lunar lander but the rules and environment ensure that there are nothing more than similarities. The LLC was IMO never credibly intended to produce real components for future lunar landers.
The PR value is obvious, so of course there will be misleading aspirational language. But are thoughts of contributions from LLC teams to NASA lunar vehicles really anything more than a self-deception?

Nick


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:55 am
Hello, DanielW,

the reason why I added another question was a different one than you thought.

This reason is that I for several reasons apply the data about Pixel James Bauer told me in the Q&A-thread in the experimental calculations in the thread "Lunar Siyuz Flight" in the Financial Barriers section. Below I will say a little bit more about the reason to do so. But that application of Pixel requires me to read and watch issues of James Bauer. This assist me in critically checking my experimental calculations and finding out unsafe points. The experimental calculations apply weights of hardware, amounts of propellants in kg, mixture ratios etc. - the calculations do NOT apply purposes of those weights like radiation handling and the like.

Because of this I asked him for additional hardware weight and additional amounts of propellant to be added to the data about Pixel. I will add those numbers then to get safer results.

That's the purpose.

Of course I never insist on getting the data if they are considered to be a secret since I as Political Economist know very well the meaning of such secrets for competition at the markets.



Hello, nihiladrem,

I didn't think that there is a close resemblance but - DanielW, now I am talking a bit more about the reason to apply Pixel - remember well that Richard Speck explicitly says of Micro Space's lander that it indeed and really can land on the Moon and that that lander - developed for the LLC - will be applied to land a rover on the Moon in the competition for the Google Lunar XPRIZE.

Based on that information from Richard Speck and a few comparisons of his lander to Pixel I apply Pixel in the experimental calculations - and based on that information I asked James Bauer in my recent post.

It is a real and positive interest simply to have a critical look at my calculations.

May be that I have to reread Richard Speck's informations - may be that he precisely talks of a modified lander to be applied for the Google Lunar XPRIZE.

But the original Micro Space lander is deveveloped to compete with Pixel and Texel - this makes me suppose that the two have simlar capabilities.



Hello, VAXHeadroom,

your comments is very positive and clarifying. The data I had a look at up to now for the experimental calculations as well as for one or two threads in the Technology section mean that the motors tend to contribute the major portion of the hardware weight and that the amount of propellant adds a weight larger than the weight of a motor.

In so far there seems to be no really larg mistake or error in the calculations and the safety margins I am applying - up to 100% - seem to cover the uncertainties althoght I will think them over much later.



So all in all my questions only have the purpose to put my calculations in question and correct them by the additional weights to be expected.



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: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:56 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
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?
.
Missed your post-
Additional weight- I am sorry, I have no idea how much would be required. My background is fabrication and welding specialties, and I am just learning the space stuff as I go. I wish I had the information for you... Sorry.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
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?
.
Armadillo is not and currently does not have plans to enter the Google Lunar XPrize. That is too far a goal for us currently. I think John has thought about a long shot if someone else funded it.
It would take a completely different vehicle than Pixel to attempt it. We would never try to make Pixel into a vehicle for the lunar attempt, it would be easier just to build a purpose built vehicle.
Oh- for your records, Texel died in a crash prior to XPrize 07. It has since been cut-up and re-born to use for the current test sled system.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:11 am
VAXHeadroom wrote:
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.

nihiladrem wrote:
The PR value is obvious, so of course there will be misleading aspirational language. But are thoughts of contributions from LLC teams to NASA lunar vehicles really anything more than a self-deception?
Nick

We have been hopeful to win the LLC simply to get the money. Though not large, it would be a good boost for us. We never thought of the current vehicles we build as actual lunar capable vehicles. Maybe someday, but not currently. I could almost agree with nihiladrem, but I think the inspirational value of the teams and machines I have seen from all of it is priceless. It puts ideas into people, hopefully a big boost in space interests will result. There is also part of me that actually hopes parts of NASA will actually change, if so that could be really great.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Dallas, Texas
Post    Posted on: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:26 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:

But the original Micro Space lander is deveveloped to compete with Pixel and Texel - this makes me suppose that the two have simlar capabilities.
Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) augustin (Political Economist)


Similar capabilities for the LLC here on earth. As for actual attempts to the lunar surface in my opinion Micro Space would be closer. He has a minimalist system, simple and lightweight. If he could get funding and a ride there and somebody adventurous enough to go, it would be really crazy but possible. But that is just a nickel opinion, as I come from welder land, not rocket land.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:31 am
Hello, James Bauer,

Thank You Very Much for your informations and comments. They are of much help and assistence even without any numbers.



Many Greetings from Germany,

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


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 3 guests


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