Slashdot Mirror
Maverick Rocketeers Pursue Space Access
Mad.Scientist writes "This article at Space.com is about mavericks who are trying to lessen the cost of going into space. One of the companies, Armadillo Aerospace, is founded by John Carmack, who is also a founder of Id Software, and the brain behind games such as Doom or Quake. I just have to say, godspeed to all." Carmack is only one of the people mentioned in this story, but see our previous story for more on Carmack's rocketry habit.
It is good to see stories like this. Since the government (and it doesn't matter which party it is) doesn't seem really all that interested in anything other than their "International" Space Station, it will take private sector people to get us where we should be in terms of the advancement of space flight.
;)
And to see that there is at least one geek involved (Mr. Carmack) makes it all the more reassuring. Of course, I suspect that they're all geeks, but I don't know the credentials of anyone else in the story.
libertarianswag.com
Seriously, look at how many "rebels" have made their way into our history and into our hearts: Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Ford (the auto-maker, not the president), Darwin. The list goes on. At every major step in mankind's evolution, there has been someone who smacks us in the face and shows us something new.
It's painful.
But where would we be without it?
Maybe Linus, RMS...today's rabblerousers?
Think about it.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
What did the Wright brothers know about flying. After all, they were just a couple of middle class bicycle mechanics, right?
carmack is not a computer programmer. Programming the computer can not be his goal. This should be clear to anyone who has read his code. I believe Mr. Carmack programs as a means to fulfilling his vision. You will find very little if anything in there that is done for the art of programming or to fulfill anyone's vision of how programming should be done.
What he does, and brilliantly, is bring his vision to reality.
I say he should follow his vision, where ever it goes and regardless what anyone tells him he can and can not do.
And no. I would not put my life in the hands of anyone's vision of a rocket ship. Show me the real rocket and then we can talk.
I should disclaim... I have never met the man, but I have read his code.
This article keeps talking about space flight as if it were something that should be cheap, that brilliance is the only thing keeping us out of orbit.
We wish.
Space flight isn't like air flight, where a couple of bicycle repairmen from Ohio could study the basic principles and build a device on their own. Air flight can be done with an ordinary gasoline engine and the right kits. Goddard developed the first successful rockets with a combination of basic physics and lots of chemistry, but those weren't manned or orbital.
On the other hand, sending a man into space for the first time took the combined financial and intellectual resources of an entire superpower. It still does, not because the principles are too advanced but because the raw materials are hideously expensive and because the margin for error is enormous. If you're trying to fly yourself into orbit, you damned well better have your engineering right because after a certain point, even parachutes won't save you from a miscalculation.
About the only thing that could make orbital commutes cost-effective would be a successful space elevator, a tether between a geosynchronous station and the ground along which cargo and people could climb and descend. High-tech planes won't do it, rockets won't do it, all of those take too much money and have too much risk. An elevator would have an initial cost and then be relatively cheap to run and re-run. And once you had one, you could send up parts for a second one again and again.
But I'm not holding out hope for a $200 ticket on a space shuttle anytime soon.
Read the webpage.
They build a little and test a little.
They have had failures and will do so in the future. It's a part of building *ANYTHING*. Doubly so for something that's a bit difficult.
Their model is more like the early aircraft builders than NASA...and that's a compliment!
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
You need to know your shit to write a simulation of a nuclear bomb explosion, or of your rocket.
/. article? There are a ton of scientific fubars out there.
Ah, like when the Ariane 5 rocket exploded because some Inertial Reference System code converted a 64-bit float into a 16-bit signed integer, resulting in an overflow?
Yeah, that's really knowing your shit.
Need I remind you of this
What exactly is SERIOUS coding, anyway? Is it like "extreme programming?" I don't think you have a very lucid grasp of what it takes to write code.
A very tragic end to a visionary who lost patience with a visionless west (whose space programs have more or less languished since the 80's) and wanted to build a working gun to proove his ideas irrespective of the consiquences.
... he could have completed the gun and they could have bombed it and obliterated it, all without murdering a relatively innocent scientist. I say relatively because, while he was no more of a criminal than Einstein or Oppenheimer, his judgement in putting his talents to work for a man such as Hussein, even as blinded by his own vision as he was, was certainly lacking IMHO. Israel's stasi-like response was of even poorer judgement.
... everything but people and delicate parts could be launched with this method for dollars, instead of thousands of dollars, a pound.
Mossad were fools to murder such a man
His idea is correct, though
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Up until a few years ago, NASA's Space Shuttle Orbiter was powered by 5 computers. Each one of these ran at 1Mhz, and at best was comparable to your 8088. It was a different processor, but that should give you a clue. 3 computers ran at a time, having primary control over everything. Two were on stand-by. For every event that they controlled, there was an "election" process. Three computers decided what to do, then they'd compare their result. If the three computers didn't agree, all 5 computers would decide if that computer was faulty, then test again.
:)
:)
All this on a 1Mhz machine.
Did I fail to mention the mass storage? Tape drives.
He doesn't need a supercomputer. ID games are very intensive and track more game variables than the Orbiter has sensors.
Even the ground-based equipment would be better on a modern PC than what was used for the original flights. Microsoft's flight simulator takes into account all the flight variables. If a Microsoft product can do it on a low-end PC, I'm sure a well written piece of software could do it better.
I'd be happy to fly on the first flight of a civilian spacecraft, especially if it wasn't designed like a giant pick-up truck (i.e., the design of the NASA craft.)
Judging someone's programming abilities by where they work is not quite fair. I know someone who programs for satellites. I program for web sites. After several discussions between us, it's agreed that I'm the better programmer. Funny that, I don't agree.. But my work isn't in aerospace, mine keeps Internet servers alive.
I'd love to take the input of sensor variables, and make control decisions.
Anyone looking for a programmer to send up on a civilian space flight, be sure to contact me.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.