Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Space vision, Dan Frederiksen

Space vision, Dan Frederiksen

Posted by: Airbag - Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:11 pm
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
 [ 25 posts ] 
Space vision, Dan Frederiksen 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:39 pm
Posts: 7
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:01 am
Airbag wrote:
In the mean time, why not discuss some.


Fair enough - I suppose a forum wouldn't be a forum without discussion :wink:
Thanks for your level-headed responses - I reread my comments on your initial posts and some of them were unnecessarily snarky and I apologize for that.


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 Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:47 am
Re: Asteroid mining - interesting thread on arocket at the moment about this, and about the economics of it. Basically, it so completely uneconomic as to be not worth even thinking about (using current AND envisaged technology).

There is also discussion on how actually to get the mined material back to earth - again, no way of doing it economically (or in some cases at all). One of the big problems is stopping it at this end - aerobraking is out of the question (too dangerous in case it goes wrong and flattens a city for one).

So, mining is not a good use reason for developing Space access.

At the moment, and for a long time.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:36 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:37 pm
Airbag wrote:
>>What is the benefit of this plan?

The benefit is that with realistic goals, things can be done that have never been done before, stun everyone, and allow a leap forward in making space accesible to normal people. A rotating space station can rent its room in the outer ring for business customers, and provide fresh food directly on board. An almost closed ecosystem. This has never been done by goverments, and firms like SpaceX.
What you are proposing is cool stuff I would love to see realized, what I don't understand is why you think that Armadillo would be the right company for this job, also the part about it being realistic (for AA) is a bit far fetched, since it does not resemble their usual work, the space station would be far more realistic to expect from Bigelow Aerospace in my opinion. AA's current plans is to (among other things) send humans past the edge of space on a suborbital VTOL vehicle I think that is more realistic, and still more enough to stun everyone, also this would be a good start for making space more available to everyone. (And it hasn't been done before either.)

Airbag wrote:
>>Why not do what they do best, VTVL that is...
I think VTVL is the way to go to do this, actually.
What I meant was that they should not spread their limited resources, and risk not getting anything done!

Airbag wrote:
>>I would argue that from the point of view of utilisation of available resources even with improved cheaper access to space technologies that going to the Moon or a near earth asteroid and mining it roboticaly (...) would be a better idea

I think it is better to launch from earth - a lot of fuel, but the moon doesn't have the resources readily available we have on earth; that would require an entire production facility on the moon which is more complicated than building a rotating space station with parts launched from Earth.
I agree that going to the moon at the moment fits poorly into AA's business model, for one thing they don't even have any near future plans to go orbital as far as I know.

Airbag wrote:
>>the robot stage of course, remote controlled as AI is not quite yet advanced enough

Yes, remote controlled robots with a good/advanced representation of external reality.
I'm not sure this is relevant to AA in the near future.

Airbag wrote:
>>I'm not sure what your background is
I have studied applied physics for some years, then dropped out and now am trying to find work in programming, robotics and/or CNC machining. I have experience with microcontroller electronics, a little robotics and a little steel bending, pcb manufacturing.
Well at least you have some concept of what you are talking about, though there are a lot of difference between theoretical physics and (applied) rocket engineering.

Airbag wrote:
>>>Try to get different modules in close proximity, then try to let them dock; build a larger construct over multiple launches. After that, don't go to moon. Build a space station.
>>the theory alone is a PhD dissertation-caliber project

If someone would be interested to do a PhD on that topic I would be delighted. But doing it as a PhD is not my priority. Too much bureacracy for me.
I think the point is that, it is not just something you hack together on a Sunday afternoon, this takes skill, time and money.... a lot of all of that!

Airbag wrote:
>>>After that, I can propose new ideas.
>>I'm not sure you can

Of course I can, but I better like to try to substantiate and discuss these ideas first. I was trying to give this space vision of Dan's a practical approach.
Anyone can come up with ideas, the problem is to realize them, and differentiate the good from the bad!
About Dan's "vision", it is nice for once being able to discuss it (and all it's problems), instead of just having to listen to Dan praising his own "perfect" mind!

Airbag wrote:
>>>If it costs money, then you have to work that out.
>>Well this is the icing on the cake.

Guess I have to find a way to finance these ideas so that Armadillo can send them into space. In the mean time, why not discuss some.
It is always fun to discuss ideas, but realizable ideas require ideas for funding!

Airbag wrote:
>>I don't understand why people keep on telling AA what to do.

It's the ideas that matter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some of the ideas just does not apply to AA and should therefore (in my opinion) just be presented as general ideas, not business plans for AA, the idea can be great, yet not fit AA!

Airbag wrote:
>>Rocket science is difficult. Satellite design and manufacture is difficult.
>>they actually get to do something they think is fun in the mean time.
I didn't really understand what you meant by that part.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:14 pm
Posts: 8
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:28 pm
The problem with Dan and people like him is that they talk big plans, dismiss and problems raised by others and yet for all their posts it is clear that they have never tried to build real hardware themselves.

Presently I am working on a new design for a self-pumping rocket motor based on some of ROTON's work.

Why am I not boasting about how smart I am? Because my previous designs kept showing faults that I never knew were there in the designs until I built and started pumping fuel into them. Afterwards the mistakes were clear to see, but all the months of work before never spotted those errors in my 'perfect' designs.

Note to any who think Dan knows what he is talking about. Ask him how the progress on his super car building is coming along. Read his early posts, it was only going to be a few months to do, years have now gone by and he still is not finished.

Always remember Rocket Science is not hard in itself, but every pound/kilogram of fuel/oxidizer can be count as that amount in inflammables/explosives and the simplest/stupidest mistake will make a mess of your work if not your entire day. :)


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 Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:46 am
Nice post Earl.

A good example is, I think, AA. They piled in to the X Prize and made fairly good progress, but I sure even John Carmack will say that it turned out to be a lot more difficult that he ever expected. It's taken them ten years to get where they are - albeit with limited funds - and they have, I think, done very well in that timescale, to end up with good tech, contracts with NASA and others, and a company that should go far.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:46 am
Posts: 4
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:46 pm
When you have gained certain understanding, gained a certain level of coherence in your thinking and worldview, you know some things better than others. Even when you have little knowledge of the details. I have no details about the full world view of Dan Frederiksen, but he is remarkably persisting in his ideas which is a powerful property that should not be underestimated. For one thing, he keeps discussion alive and provokes thinking. This is exactly what is needed.

Have you ever considered the possibility that people are not trying hard enough to reach space? That people simply don't have enough sense of understanding what is at stake here? We might never have a chance like this anymore.

Of course, I had rather heard the words of Dan from someone in the team of Armadillo itself. That would be encouraging. Even better if everyone on the team was thinking like that.

I am much like what Dan claims he is. I think my mind is perfected. I think that is a reachable goal if you invest the time in it. I doubt if Dan's mind is perfected but I am sure mine is. And I am also sure that the most part of humanity is in the dark. It is debatable, but mental coherence can be considered the highest human goal.
As I sketched out before, I am largely in agreement with Dan's vision. I can't see what's wrong with it.

"AA should reach space within 10 years, or it will be a terrible failure and waste of lifes and money"
If your goal is space, you should look at the duke nukem forever project. It would be finished "when it's done", and now we have a half-finished game that is now quickly finalized and being sold as a finished game. Have they reached their goals? No. Have the wasted their time and money? Yes, very much. The end result is a bleak vision of what could have been (or so I am being told, haven't played the game myself yet of course)
The problem is, they didn't have a clear idea of what they wanted, so it became an unreachable goal. Getting to space in x years seems to be a reachable goal. Getting in space "when it's done" seems to be nonsense. You need to set goals and adhere to them if you want to get a thing done. If you can't reach your goal with finite time and energy, you have failed or you have an unrealistic idea. You have no direction.

The idea of reaching space eventually has not been thinked through completely. It is a vague vision. One example:

Why has there never been a passenger on the experiments of AA? If you want to reach space with humans? That's absurd. Because it is too dangerous? Then when will the point arrive when it is safe enough? You need to have the bold confidence that you are building a life support system that flows into space, not just a toy that can fly doomguy away from hell when all hell breaks loose on earth and he has no other option. You must start flying with passengers immediately, and only make plans that are safe enough for continuing carrying people until you reach space. I even doubt AA has the courage to put a passenger on board of their craft! Things like these show that it is only a toy project, because things haven't been thought out. You can see it from that. Wake up, people!

You cannot make a plan without keeping available time in mind. That's like saying "lets fly to another galaxy, provide the ship with a rather large amount of fuel, and then hope it is enough to get there". We have finite time, people! How long do you think we have? Even the pyramids of Egypt were built in a lifetime. Futile, but still a reached goal. Space is radically different. Space has the potential to sustain life indefinely until heat death occurs (which is a long time compared to our existence on earth) A self-sustaining colony can be built, but only if you try! We don't have forever. If the peak oil theory is correct, we have a few years left to make our lifestyle sustainable.

I never, ever make plans that have no time spans attached. It's almost like believing you live forever. It's crazy, because it won't work. It is just not planning, more like wanting. "I want this!" "I want that" "We have plans to reach space eventually!" Oh really, what plans? How do you plan to do it? In what time frame? You don't have a time frame? Then how do you plan? Where's the plan? I don't see it. Making armadillo self-sustaining so that others can go to space eventually? And what makes you think they have a plan? How is capitalism sustainable? We have no idea.
Obviously, Armadillo has no plans for reaching space, because reaching space is unrealistic in their current planning. A plan succeeds, or a plan fails. Others can learn from that. But planning without a time frame is pretending. "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up!"

If you have a realistic goal, you know if you are succeeding or failing because you know if you are on track or lost, because time runs out eventually. That is even dangerous if you believe in logic, because unrealistic goals can prevent you from reaching realistic goals.

My goal is to meditate an hour each day, or more if possible. I doubt if I can reach the goal of meditating all day long, because I have no confidence it is reachable for me. So that's no goal for me right now. I'm not even sure if I would ever want it. Meditating an hour a day is a goal. Other goals are only secundary. I reach this goal each day. It is not unrealistic; it is reachable. Therefore, I am at peace.

I think Dan Frederiksen can come up with a more realistic plan to reach space than current affairs at AA, as far as we know their plans, because he sets a time constraint. That is the scientific method: Plan, test, revise plan, test. A plan without a time constraint is not a plan. SETI at home is not science; proposing that we are alone is science because it can be falsified. Come up with a theory, test the theory, and then revise your plan accordingly.

Getting someone in space is a complex idea, but it can be done if you come up with a solid plan and a time frame how to do it. Maybe it would be better for AA to say "We have plans for getting a rocket in sub-orbital space and we have visions for getting people in orbit" But even then, it is rather irrelevant and I have never heard of those visions either. "We plan to reach space within 10 years" is a plan. I seriously doubt AA could reach that, but it is a start. Of course, by reviewing the plan, everyone could easily see if their plan is credible. When a plan is credible, it is easier to get funding. So that's my idea for getting these ideas funded: Plan, set goals and adhere to them, by making time constraints.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:46 pm
Posts: 21
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:19 pm
It's a shame that these forums act like a honey-pot for trolls.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:46 am
Posts: 4
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:43 pm
oredson wrote:
It's a shame that these forums act like a honey-pot for trolls.


You are the troll here. Go away or say something constructive. There is no value nor truth in your post. I made a valid statement, you simply discredit others in a lazy, unsustantiated way. I respond because I have seen it before and would find it enough reason for a warning if it was my forum.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Ireland
Post Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:00 am
Can someone check if Airbags IP address is in Denmark?

johno


Back to top
Profile
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 Re: Space vision, Dan Frederiksen   Posted on: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:16 am
johno wrote:
Can someone check if Airbags IP address is in Denmark?

johno


A-1100 Vienna, Austria

He posted with two different IP's, both not matching with Dan Frederiksen or any other user.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 posts ] 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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