Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Orbital rockets cheaper/faster than Armadillo Aerospace

Orbital rockets cheaper/faster than Armadillo Aerospace

Posted by: James Bauer - Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:51 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 87 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Orbital rockets cheaper/faster than Armadillo Aerospace 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:50 pm
Posts: 22
Post Re: The Moon   Posted on: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:02 am
NWade wrote:
They have never tried to go to the moon (or stated that as their goal), and their stated method of operation is to build and test a lot of designs and learn in an incremental fashion. That is EXACTLY what they have done. No big investments in gigantic solutions, no "hail mary" attempts. This makes the progress less-exciting for armchair enthusiasts...


Not this armchair enthusiast. I am on the edge of my seat every time Armadillo posts.

And on that note, I'm just glad the bizarre posturings of this Dan person are stimulating so many Armadillos to go into so much detail about it all. Matthew Ross, especially: you are in fact achieving your goal of educating the bystanders. Thanks.

Cheers!
Rob


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post    Posted on: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:34 am
I'll second that Rob. Besides, with all the dismal news on the world economy, another motivating post out of Carmack, et al would be very timely.

Quote:
sorry

but all this talk of nazis has me thinking Republican...


sigh . . . Are you teaming up with Dan to see who can be the biggest jerk? What's with the politics at the dinner table?

_________________
Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA


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: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:45 pm
let's talk turkey.
what's the ship to fuel weight ratio of the current AA tech?
and the actual Isp.
with that let's crunch some numbers on how much a vehicle must weigh in 2 or 3 stage to get 1, 10, 100kg to orbit. other than guesstimation on how much the atmosphere affects it I think those two values should be enough to figure it out.
maybe the result will be surprisingly exciting


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:54 am
Dan,

What price point is it that you think should be obtainable? Do you consider the current list prices for the SpaceX vehicles as way out of bounds? You don't think that the 10kg package is the goal, do you?

So, let me expand the questions a little. What price point and what payload weight are you inclined to think is appropriate for Armadillo to pursue? I'm a business owner. To me, budget is everything. If I theorize that something is within budget, then I may go for it if there's enough of an ROI. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.

You've mentioned before a concept of sticking a finger in the eye of the big aerospace firms. Is that your only goal or was that supposed to be a motivational reason? Surely you're not just a glory hound.

_________________
Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:43 am
The post below was in response to a post on Dan's motivations that appears to have been pulled down. Not sure what that's all about, but it is explanation for the context of the post.


I saw it rather differently.

Dan appears to be focused on the theory that there is some grand conspiracy by every single aerospace company to perpetuate the belief that the industry is expensive and extremely complex. His personal belief appears to revolve around the idea that it is simple and relatively cheap.

Since Dan has been moderating his stream of insults and actually focusing on the technology and shortcomings, I have started to wonder what he thinks his goal is. For example, he may be entirely focused on his repeated theme of embarrassing the major aerospace firms and have no other end in mind. Or, as I expect him to indicate, he may have a more substantial plan in mind. A plan, cost, and complexity that exceeds Armadillo's desires or abilities. That's why I asked him what he thought his goal was in terms of payload to orbit and cost.

But, from the way Dan comes across, I'm inclined to believe that he just wants Armadillo to spend it's resources the way he says to, rather than the way they want to. His typical response to questions or criticism is insult or sarcasm. If he can get past that, he may very well have substantive ideas to communicate.

_________________
Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA


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: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:35 pm
Marc, AA is also motivated by Nasa's failure. it's on their website. I'm just more aware of the problem than they are. It's not a conspiracy as such but you wouldn't be able to handle the true reason for this global phenomenon of stagnation. not to mention trigger happy administrators itching for an excuse to ban me.

if I'm such an ignorant troll and you are all so great, why don't you know the Isp and body-fuel mass ratio for AA's current best tech? these are crtical parameters for rocketry as far as I can tell and you should know them.

AA, feel free to volunteer this data already


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 19
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:14 pm
Ahhhh, that's nice and smooth.

I love the smell of clown combat in cyberspace!

Check out this link:

http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News

Within these archives is all the info you will ever need to figure out that AA is holding out on us. Numbers, even.

I have it on personal authority that John Carmack has already decided not to go any higher than 73 feet with his vehicles. Because 1973 was the year that the designated hitter rule was enacted.

2.71


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: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:41 pm
perhaps you could find the data in that news then 2.71


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 19
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:50 pm
I wish I could.

Sadly, I am too lazy, opinionated, and foolish to read about the topic we currently discuss.

2.71


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 51
Location: Orange, CA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:40 pm
Levity.

It makes it all worthwhile.

Thank-you, sir. May I have another?

_________________
Marc Hopkins
Orange, CA


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:01 pm
Posts: 17
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:49 pm
Quote:
It's not a conspiracy as such but you wouldn't be able to handle the true reason for this global phenomenon of stagnation.


Ah, yes. I believe the inverse is true: Any reasons (for anything, really) presenting to you are unable to be handled by you. Most often by ignoring direct questions and authoritative rationale. And refusing to read relevant references. You've already shown us what little research and investigation you're capable of so it's unlikely one of us will wade through Armadillo's postings to find the information you desire.

Quote:
not to mention trigger happy administrators itching for an excuse to ban me.


I'm pretty sure I can handle that reason. A sure sign of a troll is cross posting (question about Isp) in hopes of higher visibility in one thread versus another. If not troll-like then certainly juvenile. Be assured that people read all updated threads in this forum.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:32 am
Posts: 8
Post    Posted on: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:26 am
[rant]
it is a bit funny, how he asks questions, he gets answer, but refuses to accept them as they do not fit into his perfect little work.

Dan, you have been told more than once I believe that the answers to many of the questions you ask can be found in the previous news posts on the AA website. If you were truly serious about everything you say, you would read them through YOURSELF. The world is not here to cater to your whims because you are too lazy to do anything yourself. Same with the other set of articles mentioned previously regarding TSTO methods.

Why do you ask questions when you are just going to ignore the answers?

"It's not a conspiracy as such but you wouldn't be able to handle the true reason for this global phenomenon of stagnation." - Dan
Oh? try me. Let's hear the true motivation behind all this, hell you can even PM me if you need to.

And if the admins are looking for an excuse to ban you, then you would be gone already.
[/rant]
M.Ravenwolf


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: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:37 am
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
if I'm such an ignorant troll and you are all so great, why don't you know the Isp and body-fuel mass ratio for AA's current best tech? these are crtical parameters for rocketry as far as I can tell and you should know them.


I don't think anyone here has said they were great.....apart from you of course.

Perhaps Marc does know those figures (although he doesn't NEED to know them as you seem to think)? AFAICT, yes, they are critical. Well done.

In fact, I know the figures (because I have read all AA postings). So, if you have a credit card handy, I would be happy to sell those figures to you. Or you could find them out the cheap way, and read through JC's postings yourself.

It's called real world economics, or 'There's no such things as a free lunch'.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:32 am
Posts: 8
Post    Posted on: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:53 am
lol.... very nice James


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: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:42 am
wow JamesH, that's quite petty and you are even proud of it. you ackowledge the data is key yet you use it to try to sabotage my point.
if my point was so obviously invalid why the fear to tell me...

AA, will you stand by and let these people speak for you? will this be your chosen position? pettyness? obtuseness


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: topspeed and 13 guests


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