John Carmack, Rocket Boy

will_edit_for_food writes "Space Future has an interview with John Carmack (of Doom and Quake fame) about his new company Armadillo Aerospace and their plans to build a passenger-carrying vehicle for space tourism." Carmack's involvement with unconventional rocketry is well-known, but this interview offers a glimpse into the details of Armadillo's approach to the skies.

Comments

I'll belive it when I see it.

[autopr0n]

from the site:

We straightened the bent frame by wedging it between the trailer and Joseph's tractor, and running a floor jack under the middle until it straightened out. Russ gave it a quick paint job.

I don't doubt that Carmack is a smart guy, but these guys are basically garage tinkerers. I wouldn't really want to fly into space on a vehicle that used duct tape as an integral part of the craft. Even if these guys can build something capable of propelling someone into space, I wouldn't want to actually be on it until the design had been worked out by real engineers.

Aside from some of the computer control stuff, I doubt they are really doing all that much innovated (well, aside from cost saving measures :P). I'm sure they're having a lot of fun though :)

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Wright brothers were "just bicycle mechanics". Its people like this who will give us cheap space access long before NASA or any other government agency does.

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[RocketGeek]

This attitude of people being "real" engineers, and others being perceived as garage tinkerers is not only arrogant and misguided, it is what holds non governmental spaceflight back.

I've seen supposed "real"engineers, in fact some with degrees from Universities such as Oxford, and supposed space engineering backgrounds, blow up rocket motors through simple and avoidable mistakes. Then again, I've seen non engineers, working without much funding (the supposed garage tinkerers), build comparable rocket motors that quite literally blow the "real" engineers efforts away in terms of reliability and robustness.

The difference, is those without the attitude, and without the government/big business mentality, seem to have a better overall grasp of how the systems go together, not always, but in my experience, generally enough that it is noticeable. There's also another facet those you refer to as garage tinkerers have that I tend to see missing in many "real" engineers in space related disciplines; it's called common sense.

As for your duct tape remark, and your comment on real engineers working out designs. I take it you've never been in one of the older space capsules ? It's always so easy to be an armchair expert when you have the benefit of ignorance to back you up. I would not, if I were you, ever go inside a Vostok or a Soyuz capsule, because if your comments above are anything to go by, you'd have a fit.

When I worked professionally in the space industry on a project in Russia, I was amazed at the simplicity of the early manned space capsules. Technology has moved on sufficiently now, that people such as John Carmack (who is far from a garage tinkerer) could develop a manned capsule to match those, of that I have no doubt.

I can't wait until John Carmack gets something manned flying. It will be like DC-X all over again. All these nay saying supposed "real" engineers suddenly changing their tune and saying "well I thought it would work actually, but I didn't say anything". Yeah right.

Armadillo Aerospace will succeed where others have failed, precisely because they don't have the attitude so prevalent in large aerospace engineering projects.

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The saying about rocket science is true: "Rocket science ain't rocket science anymore".

Forget innovation. There's all the tech we need already worked. We need the economics to work out- launching a lot does wonders for the economics. Launch every day and twice on tuesdays and the costs come down- that's the big secret. That's why the Space Shuttle costs so much: they don't/can't launch enough.

Carmack is smart enough to do this stuff- he doesn't need professional engineers, but he can/will get them as he needs to. But rockets aren't hard.

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[D_Fresh]

Yeah, you're probably right. I know at least a dozen guys on my block alone who are designing and building single-stage-to-orbit manned launch vehicles. Nothing good ever came out of garage tinkering, anyhow.

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[RocketGeek]

As another post has pointed out, originally, the likes of Apple and HP were garage start ups. I can deal with it, what's your issue ?

You are lucky if you've never come across "real" engineers who do louse up. There seems to be this arrogance that many have, this air of superiority. That's not only an observation from me (I'm a physicist by background, and yes, I have worked on a number of space missions, I just choose not to have the air of superiority that many in the industry adopt towards the so called "garage tinkerers" - a term that does many a great dis-service), but by friends who are engineers and work in their spare time on what is sneeringly called garage tinkering on rocketry, who are equally sick of the arrogant attitude espoused by engineers who spend more time in front of monitors than actually bending metal.

It's one thing to read books like Rocket Propulsion Elements, or Spacecraft Propulsion Analysis and Design, but it's a totally different exercise to get out there and test, like Armadillo Aerospace are doing.

The one whose claims require significant evidence is you. If these "real" engineers you refer to are so good, what happened to the likes of X-33, the X-30 NASP etc ? Why have Mars missions loused up because of metric/imperial confusion ? Why didn't the release system on missions that failed have a very simple, very low gain transmission system to at least enable mission controllers to know whether heat shields or descent probes separated ? What about the louse up with the first launch of Ariane 5 ? Gosh, that's a lot of discipline and knowledge shown there. Yes, these are a minority rather than a majority, but it shows that stupidity is not a trait for "real" engineers or their acolytes to confer on anyone else.

"Real" real engineering doesn't depend on wearing a suit and working for a large multinational aerospace conglomerate, and being able to run 6DOF sims on supercomputers, it depends on good engineering practice. That is not dependent on the size of the organisation, it could be any size organisation, it could be operating out of a large aerospace production line or a shed. What is important is approach.

You may also benefit from reading up about the early development of rocketry. The early work was carried out frequently by people not quite as knowledgable as you think, but with a more open mind to trying things out, and more an emphasis on testing than pontificating, that's for sure. The level of discipline required then differed little if at all from that employed by many garage level groups today. I take it you have tested hardware yourself, haven't you ? You've been at a launch pad when something unexpected goes wrong and you have to do some hack to get the vehicle in the air ?

Personally, I prefer the build a little, test a little, incremental engineering approach. It works for Armadillo, it works for the group I work with, it works for many other "garage" style groups, and small companies. And the longer some maintain an air of superiority, and that rocket engineering is all so hard and requires big aerospace engineering conglomerates and insecure people with bit attitude problems, the more stupid they will look when the smaller, nimbler groups make monkeys of them.

Re:I'll belive it when I see it.

[D_Fresh]

You're still missing the point. Of course I wouldn't trust my life to an Apple I, just like I wouldn't put the SR-71 prototype into production without building a second version or race in the latest experimental Mclaren. Just because the research takes place in a garage-equivalent and bends metal with trucks and elbow grease doesn't make it any less valid. The glamor of the finished product always masks the sweat, cursing, and unglamorous methods that went into its creation. But it's people like you that motivate companies to keep their betas under wraps - if you don't understand the creation process, then the road to innovation and genius is paved with what appears to be scary, duct-taped crap. Try to grow an imagination.

BTW, stupid error in my original comment - this is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle at all, just a pod that takes a man straight up into space and straight back down. SSTO is much harder!

Why not call it...

[Valar]

the BFR (big f-ing rocket).

Re:Where's my Doom III?

[DrVxD]

> WHy doesn't carmack stick to what he is good at.
Because he's made a load of cash from doing "what he's good at", and is now enjoying that cash. He started Armadillo primarily because he thought it would be cool, not to make money out of it. If he makes money out of it too, then that'll be cool. But mostly, he's just a boy playing with his toys. He doesn't need to finish Doom 3 - the guy could retire today and never worry about having to feed himself. But I suspect he'll finish D3 - "when it's done", because he still enjoys that too.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Mr2cents]

If not then it ought to be. Same goes for regular small model rockets available at hobby shops and other places. It's dangerous and should be outlawed.

Are you serious? When did 'dangerous' become 'illegal'? And when did you get to decide what's dangerous and what not? Is crossing the road illegal? It can be quite dangerous you know!

Anyway, I've visited some amateur rocket launches and I can tell you safety measures are strict. When you know what can go wrong, you have the key to make it safe, wheither it's about crossing the road or handling explosives. (I've still got all my fingers!)

Re:Where's my Doom III?

[Will_Malverson]

Dude, I'd much rather have cheap space access than yet another FPS.

Oh ,the bitterness!

[Junks Jerzey]

I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but it has to be said:

1. Enough with the negativity about this kind of thing being better left to the professionals. Do you really think that the professionals can do any better? It's not like NASA has been pounding out the new rocket designs. You have to give Carmack credit in that he's experimenting and moving forward rather than getting bogged down in bureacracy and corporate politics.

2. DOOM 3 shouldn't even be mentioned here. It's not like there's any kind of real overlap between rocketry and game development. I love the guy who seems to think that Carmack will now understand physics better so he can put it to good use in DOOM 3. Bizarre.

Re:Oh ,the bitterness!

[guybarr]

Enough with the negativity

rocketry is DANGEROUS, caution and skepticism are not negative, they are an asset. (you don't want the thing dropping on bystanders head, right ? )

about this kind of thing being better left to the professionals.

Of course the R&D team should be made primarily of prefessionalists (see above). But except for carmack and, perhaps, Widget the armadillo, my guess is most of the team IS made of professionalists.

Do you really think that the professionals can do any better?

again, in such areas only professionals can do any good, but they should work in an environment encouraging both real progress and methodical, rational QA.

You have to give Carmack credit in that he's experimenting and moving forward

no disagreement from me, any man making such a move deserves my respect.

good luck for his team and the others (serious) teams working on such projects. Their success are the human race's .