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.
Then all they would need is booster rockets to put it orbit.
that would be way cheaper than anything NASA is doing.
Heck, NASA should just buy a few of those at 6 mil a pop!
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
"Private Industry should be allowed into space...imagine if the computer industry had worked on space travel---we'd already been to Mars and our space ship wouldn't be as old as my grandfather =)"
Yeah, and all the signposts would be like:
"Venus 200,000m.
Have you got a HOTMAIL ACCOUNT yet?
Presented by Microsoft."
graspee
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)
Gerald Bull who shot to fame as the inventor of the Iraqi Super Gun did a lot of work on constant pressure launch systems - enormous cannons with explosives positioned along the barrel to keep the pressure behind the projectile constant for the full launch length.
Estimated cost to LEO? $1 per pound.
Because the shock was distributed along the acceleration, maximum G force on the load was 40G: fine for food and fuel and most construction supplies.
You can read more about his work at Federation of American Scientists Supergun pages, [2], and at NASA.
There really is more than one way to do it.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
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.
To quote from the website mentioned above:
He lived an unusual life, to be sure, working for various shady governments, mostly in a simple effort to make his vision reality. His work for Iraq, however, apparently cost him his life. He was assasinated in 1990.
Bull's dream of cheap satellite launches was left unfulfilled. And so the world still pushes all that heavy fuel into space.
He was a true hacker.
If it would be possible to build a "super spud gun" using PVC fittings, etc - in this similar manner? Get a long piece of PVC, attach booster chambers using sewage drain "down spout" connectors, a load of JBWeld, some sensors and electronic ignition, etc.
Maybe make the thing out of steel and weld all of the connections - would be an interesting porject for "backyard" high-altitude experiments.
Possibly even "x-prize" level experiments...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If you really want a big gun then you want a Ram Accelerator. It will subject a projectile to about 25,000 G's of acceleration.
The beauty of it is its efficiency. The fuel (gas) is stored in the barrel. The projectile is fired to have it travel fast enough to cause its shock wave to ignite the gas in the tube and therefore propel it even more. Basically, it is just ahead of the detonation wave it creates.
The University of Washington has a good bit of info about them.
Cool stuff.
I am helping a hardware vendor optimize the E3 build of Doom right now, but I'll make a pass of replys and comments later on tonight...
(yes, the Id net connection is slashdotted at the moment)
John Carmack
He came to Space Access to meet with us, and it was interesting talking with him. He is certainly not an engineer, but he is actually building a lot of hardware, which is more than can be said for most folks in the space crowd.
The abject stupidities in his original design that got him a lot of flack (Fins at the top! 1.2 T/W ratio without guidance!) are now gone, and he has decided to have a testing plan before launching himself, so I think he has a decent shot at flying something and living to talk about it. I wish him luck.
An interesting question: is it easier to motivate a learned individual that never does anything, or educate an ignorant individual that actually produces things?
John Carmack