Community > Forum > Official Armadillo Aerospace Forum > Official Armadillo Q&A thread

Official Armadillo Q&A thread

Posted by: John Carmack - Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:01 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 2523 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 ... 169  Next
Official Armadillo Q&A thread 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 266
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:42 am
The shuttle, or the ginormous plume of aluminum oxide?


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 15
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:48 pm
John Carmack's tube rockets have suffered failures
during launch attempts. (More details to come)
Each launch item must cost over 100,000 dollars;
I'm glad he can afford it.
John? If you're reading this, nice try, don't give up!
Kudos to you and your team.
You'll learn more from these failures than successes.

Afterall...How many failures did the USAF have in their
attempt to launch the first successful Atlas missile?
Five? Six?

But when Atlas finally got a reasonably good track record,
John Glenn, Ranger 7, Mariner 4, Mariner 2 all owe their success
to it.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 1379
Location: Exeter, Devon, England
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:47 pm
http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armad ... ews_id=375

_________________
> http://www.fullmoonclothing.com
> http://www.facebook.com/robsastrophotography
> robgoldsmith@hotmail.co.uk


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 Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:29 am
Ouch. Two failures in two flights (that we know of). Still, sounds like an awful lot of learning was done in those two flights, so not wasted by any stretch.

Just goes to show how difficult rocket engineering is, even with 10 years worth of experience, they are still learning with every flight.

That dalek really took off fast!


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:29 pm
Yeah. Still, this isn't the first time they've had problems with transport-induced damage. That goes all the way back to the first Lunar Lander Challenge IIRC. Perhaps they should set up a 100 mile circuitous route to the field for every hover test from now on? Literally shake out any bugs?

Anyway, if you think about it not that much did go wrong. Stig has some control issues, which I suppose were to be expected given the somewhat unconventional design, and they knew full well that that was a pretty high-risk endeavour. It seems to me that Dalek should have worked just fine if it weren't for the transport damage. Yes, it's a setback, and a costly one, but they are really very close. So to everyone at AA: stick with it! You're close, and you will make it. One more time around...

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 213
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:33 pm
Lourens wrote:
Yeah. Still, this isn't the first time they've had problems with transport-induced damage. That goes all the way back to the first Lunar Lander Challenge IIRC. Perhaps they should set up a 100 mile circuitous route to the field for every hover test from now on? Literally shake out any bugs?
Anyway, if you think about it not that much did go wrong. Stig has some control issues, which I suppose were to be expected given the somewhat unconventional design, and they knew full well that that was a pretty high-risk endeavour. It seems to me that Dalek should have worked just fine if it weren't for the transport damage. Yes, it's a setback, and a costly one, but they are really very close. So to everyone at AA: stick with it! You're close, and you will make it. One more time around...


I second that.

Bob Clark

_________________
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago with the Titan II first stage.
Contrary to popular belief, SSTO's in fact are actually easy. Just use the most efficient engines
and stages at the same time, and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: http://exoscientist.blogspot.com


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 152
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:54 pm
RGClark wrote:
Lourens wrote:
Yeah. Still, this isn't the first time they've had problems with transport-induced damage. That goes all the way back to the first Lunar Lander Challenge IIRC. Perhaps they should set up a 100 mile circuitous route to the field for every hover test from now on? Literally shake out any bugs?
Anyway, if you think about it not that much did go wrong. Stig has some control issues, which I suppose were to be expected given the somewhat unconventional design, and they knew full well that that was a pretty high-risk endeavour. It seems to me that Dalek should have worked just fine if it weren't for the transport damage. Yes, it's a setback, and a costly one, but they are really very close. So to everyone at AA: stick with it! You're close, and you will make it. One more time around...


I second that.

Bob Clark


And I second that.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 816
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:40 am
You mean, you third that. :)

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:51 am
Posts: 448
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe, Earth
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:02 am
No, he highlighted a different part of the text.

_________________
pride comes before a fall


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 15
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:02 pm
John? If you are reading this, please reply & let us know if
the suggestion I give is worth spit?
In fact, if any employee of AA is reading this, please pass on my suggestion to John. Thanx.

Apparently, the failure of these two recent planned 100K ft altitude launch attempts may have been prevented had you had repair facilities available
at your remote launching location IF my understanding is correct.

My suggestion is? Why not purchase an large (Airstream?) trailer and gut
it and convert it to a PORTABLE onsite repair and maintenance shop that you can tow to a future launch site?
Your tuberockets couldn't be THAT LARGE that they wouldn't fit
into such an ad hoc portable facility.
So, Mr. Carmack? What do you think? A worthwhile suggestion, or not?


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: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:31 am
ordinary joe wrote:
John? If you are reading this, please reply & let us know if
the suggestion I give is worth spit?
In fact, if any employee of AA is reading this, please pass on my suggestion to John. Thanx.

Apparently, the failure of these two recent planned 100K ft altitude launch attempts may have been prevented had you had repair facilities available
at your remote launching location IF my understanding is correct.

My suggestion is? Why not purchase an large (Airstream?) trailer and gut
it and convert it to a PORTABLE onsite repair and maintenance shop that you can tow to a future launch site?
Your tuberockets couldn't be THAT LARGE that they wouldn't fit
into such an ad hoc portable facility.
So, Mr. Carmack? What do you think? A worthwhile suggestion, or not?


Any big race car trailer with workshop would do the job I would think.


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 15
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:20 am
I don't know if Ben or John are reading this post.
But here goes!
John? You used to be enthusiastic about using hydrogen peroxide
as either a liquid monopropellant or bipropellant with kerosene.
These are liquids of course.

But, since you are familiar with chemistry, while I'm only self-taught in it,
using college text books, I'd like to ask you about your assessment of
sodium percarbonate (used in organic bleach; hydrogen peroxide molecules are linked with the substance; and is a solid at room temperature).
Would such a substance make an fair or acceptable solid-propellant
oxidizer, either with a hybrid system or with the use of a hydrocarbon solid
as fuel?


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: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:05 am
ordinary joe wrote:
I don't know if Ben or John are reading this post.
But here goes!
John? You used to be enthusiastic about using hydrogen peroxide
as either a liquid monopropellant or bipropellant with kerosene.
These are liquids of course.

But, since you are familiar with chemistry, while I'm only self-taught in it,
using college text books, I'd like to ask you about your assessment of
sodium percarbonate (used in organic bleach; hydrogen peroxide molecules are linked with the substance; and is a solid at room temperature).
Would such a substance make an fair or acceptable solid-propellant
oxidizer, either with a hybrid system or with the use of a hydrocarbon solid
as fuel?


Hi OJ (?)

You might be better off asking that question on the arocket list - John Carmack is on there, but also a LOT of other rocket people who would be able to answer the question too.

I think the reasons Armadillo went away from peroxide was lack of availability of high concentration peroxide, but I may be misremembering.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 266
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:45 pm
ordinary joe wrote:
But, since you are familiar with chemistry, while I'm only self-taught in it,
using college text books, I'd like to ask you about your assessment of
sodium percarbonate (used in organic bleach; hydrogen peroxide molecules are linked with the substance; and is a solid at room temperature).
Would such a substance make an fair or acceptable solid-propellant
oxidizer, either with a hybrid system or with the use of a hydrocarbon solid
as fuel?

RPA doesn't have the adduct of sodium percarbonate, but it does have the two individual chemicals. Running them with HTPB at optimum mixture ratio (8.481) at 600psi chamber pressure gives an optimum expanded sea level ISP of 181.58.

That's low compared to a good solid, even worse than sorbitol-KnO3, at 227s optimum. APCP at the same pressure and expansion is 244s. (Other solid people, is that sorbitol number right? I can't see having done it wrong, but that seems high.)

On a practical level, it may be difficult to work with, or it may be detonation-prone when mixed with fuel; I'd expect it to be. You'd have to ask on AR if anyone has actually heard of it.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:50 am
Posts: 265
Location: UK
Post Re: Official Armadillo Q&A thread   Posted on: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:41 am
I'm only seeing about 120 theoretical seconds from 106/52/14 Na2CO3:H2O2:HTPB @600PSI to sea level pressure. The binding energy between the peroxide and the sodium carbonate is indeed small enough to ignore in PROPEP.
Ben wrote:
is that sorbitol number right? I can't see having done it wrong, but that seems high

From the SSTS stuff, KNSB is ~157s theoretical from 1000PSI. I believe you can expect a bit less than 140s practically. Sodium percarbonate is at core a decent if somewhat reactive oxidiser stabilized with something that you could smother a fire with.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2523 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 ... 169  Next

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


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