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

Ahha!

[Latent IT]

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.

Holy cow, I didn't know Carmack was such a farm boy. ;p

Hmmm

[BlackCobra43]

I wonder if he'll send some marines off to Mars one day,just to see.....

BFG

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen what Carmack can do with the BFG - I'm not about to ride one of those into orbit!

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]

About 2 million duct tapes are used when doing preps for each shuttle mission. We have such a large order that 3M has it's own division set out for us. Ductape is an intergrial (no joke) part of all space research. Oh I'm at NASA btw.

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.

[SheldonYoung]

Real engineers get stuff done, the rest are just posers.

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

[Reality Master 101]

You do know that they're talking about one of the experimental landers, right? Just out curiosity, exactly how would YOU have fixed it? Do you think they should order another one out of the catalog? Start the engineering teams rebuilding one from scratch?

Sheesh, cut him some slack.

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.

[Grax]

Technicians get stuff done. Engineers just think up the stuff that needs doing.

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

[CoolVibe]

"Grey tape has a lot of uses. We use it for almost everything"

That's a quote from a real astronaut, although I don't remember which one... heck, if NASA uses it, I might just be able to justify my excessive use of it at work as well to whoever complains at work :)

So what's the difference between NASA's duct tape, and the "normal" type I use?

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.

[bsartist]

So what's the difference between NASA's duct tape, and the "normal" type I use?

About $150 a roll.

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

[Saeger]

It's this same institutional arrogance that explains why NASA throws away a perfectly good space station component on every Shuttle mission.

A real "hacker" would have recognized the huge value in boosting the external tanks a tiny bit further so they could make orbit and be repurposed later.

--

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!

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

[D_Fresh]

RocketGeek, I totally agree with you. The kind of anti-tinkering prejudice exhibited by some posters about this story is astounding to me. Although not an engineer by training (or really by nature) myself, I've worked closely with them and understand the ethos quite well. Tinkering isn't a marginal activity, it's the heart and soul of what it means to be an engineer. The lack of imagination that the skeptics are showing is incredible - is it so hard to believe that a bunch of guys in a warehouse could eventually (note that word) build a ship that takes men into space?

This is why I was so excited when "Junkyard Wars" became popular - it glorifies the engineers (at least the mechanical ones) in a way that is clearly needed, based on the nudniks who disparage Armadillo's efforts. We need more high-profile shows that go into serious detail about the creation process behind major engineering efforts - I'm talking actual series here, instead of one hour about how the Hoover Dam got built. I'd watch an Engineering Channel for hours on end if it existed. For example, I'd love to hear about all the setbacks and bugs they encountered when programming the computers for the first Apollo missions!

Go to Armadillo's web site and read some of their weekly reports on their progress - these guys are totally serious, and they know their stuff. What they don't know, they've learned, from the ground up - they started with very simple engines bolted to test racks, and they even dribbled peroxide onto various materials to test how they reacted (note to self: no leather shoes!). Along with the other small rocket companies, they're creating a new space culture that is unbelievably exciting - you watch, this is not a blip - more companies like this will spring up. This is the beginning of a whole new private space industry - at last the general public has the technology available to launch thing Very High. :)

To all the philistines, I've said it before - try to grow an imagination. It could prove useful someday.

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

[crawling_chaos]

I would suggest that you read any of the accounts of the early space program, particularly the debacle of the first launch of Mercury-Atlas 1. NASA's real engineers put people into space using a lot of "a wing and prayer" techniques. As for duct tape, Apollo 13 would never had made it home without it. It was integral to the jury rigged adapter to fit the CM Lithium Hydroxide canisters into the LM system, since the "real engineers" hadn't bothered to spec the same carts for both systems, despite the fact that the LM Lifeboat was in fact a recognized mission mode. Tom Kelly's pretty hard on himself for that decision in his book on moon lander development.

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

[ealar dlanvuli]

This brings up a good point, is it possible to complete *any* construction/engineering project without any duct tape?

I'd venture to guess negative, but if someone can prove that it's possible to build anything w/o the use of the holy matter, please do so :)

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

[Pii]

Why is it that Marxism/Communism can only exist when it is enforced in oppressive authoritarian dictatorships? Because human nature causes most people to think only of themselves, their immediate friends, family, and about two generations of children ahead.

Exactly... Marxism/Communism is an unworkable system because it runs contradictory to human nature. Why not let the discussion end there? People are not programmed to show the same amount of concern for a complete stranger as they would a family member, or a friend. That's simply how we work.

Also, don't fool yourself into believing that you, as a self-proclaimed socialist, are any different from a marxist. You're not. Individual rights are cast aside by socialists and marxists. Some would argue that it's a matter of degree. I make no distrinctions... You are either for, or against, individual rights. Once you cross the line, you've chosen, and that's where you are.

You concede that Capitalism provides an excellent mechanism for balancing supply and demand, but you fail to recognize that it also seeks to minimize waste (In that it is more expensive to be wasteful, than not to be. Inefficiency is penalized in Capitamism, in the form of increased costs of production.). Take two companies providing an identical product, selling for an identical price as an example. Which of them will win out in the end? The one which can best utilize it's materials, minimizing the costs. They will be more profitable, and have the means to drive the other out of the marketplace.

Getting back to human nature, which economic system allows people the highest degree of freedom? Which allows the individual the greatest amount of personal choice? Which economic system demands the least amount of sacrifice?

I realize that from a detached perspective, such as that of a student engaged in scholarly pursuits, these questions seem somewhat less than noble, and that the "people must adjust their lifestyles for the greater good" position seems a perfectly reasonable stance. The reality is that only Capitalism respects the rights of the individual, and that "the greater good" is a myth used by those who seek power to influence those that are ruled.

We have seen the devastating results of socialism/marxism in practice. It results in the mismanagement of resources, including both raw materials, the means of production, and the application of labor. There is never going to be a 5 year plan that can successfully anticipate the needs of the moment. While capitalism cannot predict those needs either, it is certainly far more dynamic in responding to those needs once they are revealed.

Understand that the only "equality" that we should strive for is equality of opportunity. Beyond that, you'd like to see equality of outcome, and that is something that is never going to happen.

We, as people, are not equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some are stronger. Some are faster. Some are more creative.

These countless differences in people ensure that the various outcomes of our lives will vary tremendously. Capitalism allows people to make the best use of their individual, disparate talents, allowing us to be rewarded based on how useful our talents are to those seeking them. Beyond that, what else could be hoped for?

With that as a backgound, socialist schemes don't hold much appeal. If I put my talents to good use, and I can afford better health care than someone else, should I not be entitled to it? Health care, just like anything else, is a limited resource. Shouldn't price determine the allocation of that resource just as it does in any other market?

If not price, what else should be used? Need? Who determines the person in greater need? Is there a panel of experts? A single arbiter? Would there be a board of appeals? Is a street person more "needy" than someone that runs a company?

If there is some central controlling authority, is there any way to ensure that their influence isn't bought? How can we prevent corruption, or the playing of favorites?

You can't. It all comes back to the fact that socialism/communism is inherently unsuited to human nature. Life isn't fair, and people will never truly be equal. Capitalism makes the best of a bad situation, while allowing people the greatest amount of freedom, and opportunity, and for that reason, it is the best possible economic system for humankind.

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

[WNight]

On the subject of capitalism... I always find it amusing how die-hard capitalists insist that it's all fair labour that keeps them where they are, and then they insist on police protection and restrictive laws protection their business. Paid for, by the taxes of the lower classes.

If it was really a free, open market, they'd have to watch out for those they screwed over.

So really, these uber-independant capitalist businessmen can only thrive in an situation where they're being supported by the public.

IMHO I think a socialism, as currently practiced, is the only reasonable way in the long-term. Even if people should all succeed on their own merits, you can't expect the same of children. Schooling, nutrition, and the like are all very important. I'm not ready to damn the child because their parents are bad with money. If I dislike a welfare state I'd rather proactively make sure it doesn't perpetuate instead of just complaining about it. If that means I pay 50% tax instead of 25% and can live in a world where I won't get mugged to pay for someone's food, I'm okay with it.

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

[NeMon'ess]

Thank you for replying. I forgot from my basic economics class how capitalism does penalize waste and that is a good thing. How do you feel about social services and programs such as welfare? Like you say I support giving every person equal opportunity. I may not have said it clearly or at all in my posts, but I'm under no illusions that all people are equal. If in my utopian future some people don't want to take part, then they don't get all, some, or any of the benefits. I don't know which.

To me welfare is good if it helps children have equal opportunity, and it gives parents a chance to get their life on track. As many states in the USA are doing, those benefits end after 5 years if the parent doesn't get on with their life. Thats fair to some degree.

What do you think of semi-socialist policies in Canada and northern European countries giving basic equal health care paid for by the upper classes?

Do you think my concerns about the environment are wrong? My figures off? Since we're both presumably concerned about the next two generations ahead of us, something ought to be done to help the planet and the lives of future generations, or are your grandchildren set for life already?

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

[Pii]

Welfare programs have a couple of major strikes against them:

First, they are funded through taxes, which is a clever way of taking money from the people that are actually out there earning it, and giving it to those that aren't.

Second, the programs simply don't work.

Understand that there is a difference between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment is not taxpayer funded... It is paid by employers and employees (Paid by the employer, but the cost has a direct relation to the salaries that employees earn).

Unemployment insurance does what you described above. It helps people get through while looking for work.

Welfare, on the other hand, is not funded by the individuals that receive its assistance. You mention that some States have placed caps on welfare benefits. That represents a reform of the welfare system. It's a step in the right direction, and in the States where such a limitation exists, a greater percentage of the participants are able to get off the program, and become self-sufficient.

That fact alone speaks volumes about the net-effect of Johnson's "War on Poverty." Government subsidies do more harm than good. Entitlement programs victimize the very people that they are intended to help.

Earlier in America's history, there were no government entitlement programs. Instead, when a person or family needed help, they turned to friends, family, local charities, or other organizations in their community. Assistance came from people they knew, with names, and faces. There was a sense of obligation not only to return to self-sufficiency, but to repay the debt of gratitude in some way, because the help had come from the community.

Today, assistance comes to the mailbox, or is directly deposited into a bank account. There is little shame in it. There is nobody to say "thank you" to, nor is there any reason to feel a sense of shame.

I'll never forget watching a program like 60 minutes, or some such program, interviewing a person on public assistance. The lady was in Wisconsin, back when Tommy Thompson had just become Governor, and had implemented the 5 year welfare limitation. The lady was very angry... She actually referred to her benefits as her "salary," as though she had earned it. I have had a job since the age of 13. I worked all through high school, and all of my adult life. I cannot tell you how much it angered me to hear this lady upset that she was finally going to have to find a way to pay her own way through life.

But I don't want to turn this into a diatribe about some lady in Wisconsin...

All of the issues you raise untimately leave me flat because they are all forms of wealth redistribution. Welfare... National Health Care... Food Stamps... Blah, blah, blah...

Nothing in this life is free. Someone is paying. I am perfectly willing to pay my own way through life. Further, if there's something that I want, or even something that I need, I have no right to demand that you, or anyone else pay for it. The moment I try, or have the government do my bidding, then I have forfeit my own property rights.

Once you do that, you have mothing left. If you have no right to property, you have no freedom at all. Your labor can be seized... You can be conscripted into the military, or some other "publically worthwhile" cause. They can dictate what you read, or see, or listen to.

The point is that once you allow government to cross the line, they can redefine the line repeatedly, whenever "the masses" demand it.

That is the fundamental difference between a "Democracy" an a "Republic."

In a Democracy, government can undertake any activity, so long as it has the support of the majority. It is, in essence, mob rule.

In a Republic, there are limitations on what a government can undertake, no matter what popular opinion may be at the moment. A government has a Charter, and it may not exceed the limits of that charter.

It is for that reason that a Republic is the only form of government worthy of consideration for a people that ascribe the rights theory.

Now bringing it around to your questions about the environment, sure, I want my children to be able to grow up in a world with fresh air, and clean water, and I want that for their children as well.

Does that mean that I think the only way to get there is by placing artificial limits on the quality of life for people in the United States, or anywhere else in the world? Of course not.

The answer lies not in turning back the clock. It lies in making the breakthroughs that allow us to elevate the rest of the world to our standard of living, and do so in such a way as to ensure the long term survival of the species.

It means ending the witch hunt against nuclear power, which remains the most efficient, and cleanest means of meeting our energy demands. It also means finding a better way to manage the waste that is produced. We need to begin testing the second generation of nuclear power... Why haven't we built a pebble-bed reactor? No possibility of melt-down... Dramatically reduced amount of waste material... Same amount of power output.

These things should be popping up all over the place until we can find a safe way to harness fusion power.

Also recognize that they age of oil is coming to a close. Fuel-cells will be taking off 10 years from now. They'll be fairly common 15 years from now.

The problems we face environmentally have solutions. We need to refine the solutions that we've already uncovered, and we need to discover the solutions that yet remain. Don't hamstring humanity in the interim...

It's very easy for the "have-nots" or the "have-lesses" to cry foul, and demand that first world nations abandon centuries of human progress. Our ancestors worked hard to provide the foundation upon which we stand. I don't think it's time to jump off.

Besides, there's an asteroid coming in 2019. Bask in excess while you can. The sky is falling!

HP engines.....

[digitallis]

Interesting that they want to use HP engines. Last I checked, these were smaller engines used simply for course correction. (aren't the OMS engines on the Shuttle hydrogen peroxide?) The logistics of a directed hypergolic reaction outside of the microgravity of space must be an interesting on as well. (How they plan to get enough of the stuff to take off....)

FOr that matter, I don't see any plans for an orbital insertion vehical/stage. The site isn't very clear on the business plan.

Re:HP engines.....

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, Hydrogen Peroxide is an ok/poor fuel on its own, but mixed with a hydrocarbon like Kerosene it's probably capable of making orbit in a single stage.

In some ways it's better than LOX- it's 'specific impulse density' is slightly higher than LOX. This means you get more kick per unit volume of tank (although it is heavier too). However, since rockets are mostly tanks, it's not a silly fuel.

In normal applications HP ("HTP") is used for attitude jets because it is a 'storable propellent'. This means that you can put it in a tank and leave it there for over a year without any big issues. LOX evaporates. Also HTP is a monopropellent, so it's fairly easy to work with.

The Space Shuttle uses storable propellent for its OMS engines, although not HTP. Some russian rockets use HTP as a fuel to run their turbopumps IRC.

Re:HP engines.....

[sconeu]

HP engines aren't any good since Carly took over. THey should use IBM engines instead.
</HUMOR>

As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, HUMOR tags have been added for the humor impaired.

Re:HP engines.....

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Nah. Stuff you get over the counter is at the very most 70%; probably more like 35%, but in any case its loaded with stabilisers and topped up with water. The stuff for rocketry has no stabilisers, and no water, it's also very difficult to get hold of- almost no one will sell it to you.

Anything below 72% has too much water in it to react well, it gives you damp steam with some O2 mixed in. It will burn Kero, but not well.

Re:HP engines.....

[Will_Malverson]

So if I'm bored some day I go pick up some hydrogen peroxide, mix it with kerosene, and make some sort of remote detonation device and head over to the other side of the beach?

Well, maybe. The "Hydrogen Peroxide" you can buy at the drug store is 97% water and 3% H2O2.

But, let's say that you can find someone to sell you some High Test Peroxide (usually around 85%, but sometimes up to 97% H2O2). They're going to be incredibly unstable once you mix them -- a standard rule of H2O2 safety is to not put it in any container that's ever had hydrocarbons in it.

Re:HP engines.....

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yeah, but they do sell stronger stuff for some limited applicability- I think you can buy the 35% stuff in small bottles for bleaching wood.

The 30+% H2O2 is not quite as bad as you say; it is better than most acids, but you don't mess around with it- it certainly can kill you. I heard of one guy that got covered with the stuff- he was hosed down, ripped off all his clothes and got hosed down some more; and he was completely OK, except he was a bit white for a few days (as was everyone else around him, but for a different reason! ;-)

Rocket Jump

[red5]

Space tourism. w00t!

Just so long as it doesn't involve a rocket jump.

A Rocket Scientist?!?

[Jagasian]

So his day job involves being one of the world's best software engineers... and in his spare time he is a rocket scientist? Someone tell God to spread the smarts around, ok? Maybe the Joe-sixpacks and Soccer-moms could get a little?

Re:A Rocket Scientist?!?

[Jagasian]

The most used weapon in Quake online professional duels is the lightning gun. Second most used weapon is the rocket launcher. So get your facts straight. Weapon balance might sound like a good idea, but in fact, it sucks.

The CATS Prize?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Presumably to be award to those on their way to destruction, or possibly those who have no chance to survive make their time.

directions to space

[kyras]

But, Carmack says, "we are taking complimentary directions to space."

I hope those directions are up.

Re:directions to space

[Bingo Foo]

not if the orbit is geostationary. just keep going 90 degrees away from the planar-tangent of the launch pad.

Nope. The best path to geosynchronous orbit is not a straight line. You conserve fuel and pick the desired longitude by beginning with an elliptical orbit.

I'm a liberal/socialist, no commie tho. Help me. Read my journal.

So in addition to your misunderstanding of physics, you don't get human nature, economics, or spelling? At least you recognize that you need help. That's the first step.

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.

why?

[skydude_20]

because he secretly knows that the story line in Quake(II mostly) isn't fake, and that he knows we need a to hurry up with any kind of space flight systems development for hope of beating the aliens many years from now

chuckle

[Vodak]

cramck just wants to use the phrase

"TO THE MOON ALICE!"

The part I'm most pleased about...

[DarkHelmet]

Is not quite so much what he can achieve through this company, but what the project contributes to his first love: gaming.

From a programming standpoint, Quake 3 is a marvel, but I wouldn't exactly call it a marvel in game physics. The game relies mostly on characters within bounding boxes. There isn't much interaction with the environment other than shooting at objects, jumping, or falling.

From a physics standpoint, the most impressive things about the Quake series is most likely its lighting. Even though this is a pre-calculated lightmap, radiosity isn't really a simple thing.

Trespasser was years ahead of Quake in this area. Boxes would shatter, and each pieces of wood would scatter everywhere. Too bad the game didn't do much else right.

Doom 3 is supposed to be worlds better. Enemies are supposed to be able to fall down steps, more interaction, etc.

Remember that the Graphics Engine for Doom was done a while back, around the time he started Armadillo Airspace. Think about what's left for him to explore. AI and Game Physics are two big regions.

I'm expecting Doom 3 to be a lot of things that all other Id games weren't. AA plays a big part of my expectations.

Re:The part I'm most pleased about...

[James Foster]

Boxes did not shatter in Trespasser.
Pieces of wood and the crates in the game were seperate things, and they did not become each other.

Trespasser had impressive physics, only if you could see past the bugs. The bugs were the worst part of Trespasser. The physics especially was riddled with bugs. Quake's physics was primitive, but it was quite solid. [except for bunny hopping...]

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

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.

The FAA has taken jurisdiction of the 'problem'. You can't launch anything without a license. That goes for aeroplanes too; and the commonality is pretty close, provided they are manned. The rocket community takes safety very seriously. Incidentally, the government has banned launches by American citizens anywhere in the world without a launch license; but launch licenses are available for people that can show they know what they are doing.

Bottom line- no it's not dangerous; the FAA are very paranoid.

Re:Hey! Maybe....

[Anonymous DWord]

It's ok, he got a haircut. The question is, can he tuck all that ego inside a space helmet?

Re:launch procedure

[zephc]

for warp travel, the 3-step plan:

1. matter/anti-matter reaction
2. ???
3. ship goes fast!, err, PROFIT!

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 .

It sounds to me like...

[detritus.]

Maybe Commander Keen has finally gone to John's Head....

Billy Blaze, eight year-old genius, working diligently in his backyard clubhouse has created an interstellar starship from old soup cans, rubber cement and plastic tubing. While his folks are out on the town and the babysitter has fallen asleep, Billy travels into his backyard workshop, dons his brother's football helmet, and transforms into...

COMMANDER KEEN--defender of Earth!

In his ship, the Bean-with-Bacon Megarocket, Keen dispenses galactic justice with an iron hand!

This is disturbing

[Mr. Grimm]

Am I the only one who doesn't think the guy who made games about demons coming from a space base should be the one helping to fund tourist space shuttle trips?

anyone can be a rocket scientist

[lingqi]

Someone tell God to spread the smarts around, ok?

Come on -- I can be twice the rocket-scientist he is, given enough dough. It's not the smarts that needs to be spread around (I would wager that many /.ers are capable of exactly what Carmack is doing, if not more), it's rather the tens of millions of disposable income that he has but we do not that's keeping us from similar (possibly - make that undoubtedly - better rocket projects)

for most of us -- by the time we have a tenth of that amount of money, we will have kids, family, and retirement to think about. Time, energy, and ambition all have gone down -- when you are worried about your teenage children and the abundance of E in raves, spare-time rocket-building take a backseat. Young + have money for an expensive hobby does not make you a good rocket-scientist by any means (even though i admire his spirit and all)

Re:Those were the days

[jeboyer]

So, anyone have any links for someone looking to get into amature rockets?

I'm not sure what you classify as amatuer, but the two biggest "consumer" (essentially for stuff you can buy commercially) organizations for model and high-power rocketry are

National Association of Rocketry

Tripoli Rocketry Association

`Unconventional rocketry'?

[tuxedo-steve]

You mean, like, stomach-mounted rocket launchers? :)

That's kinda cool

[kosipov]

I think it is an interesting symbolism that Carmack is involved in design of rockets for cheap access to space.

In many science fiction books there are two trends for the near future (there are a lot more but these are two major ones). Distopia is typically presented by heavily cybernetic society where the humanity is not really concerned about space. The other trend, is diametrically opposite with humanity focused on space exploration.

Carmack is in a sense a protagonist of future distopia as a designer of cybernetic worlds that are becoming increasingly important to our society (graphics acceleration business, success of 3D animation, even the debates over the impact of the violence in video games). People like Carmack working on rockets is a sign that our future does not have to be a choice between space and cyberspace.

The Difference

[namtog]

There is a big difference in "grey" tape. The most common type is duct, not duck, tape. This is what you find at your local hardware store. Yes, it has many uses.

Then there is gaffers tape, a much higher quality product. And, as you might guess more expensive.

Leave it to the pros?

[Pedrito]

Who are the pros? NASA? These guys can't get their metric/English units converted properly in their software. I doubt Carmack would make that mistake. The European Space Agency? They put the wrong software in an Arianne rocket which ended in its destruction.

Seems to me there's plenty of room for "non" professionals in the field because the pros are making plenty of stupid moves.

Kind of reminds me of my boss. Our software has a wide range of applications but he wants to stick to areas where we have "niche knowledge." Well, the fact is, we won't get "niche knowledge" in other niches unless we actually apply it to other areas. Want to become a pro? You gotta be a novice first. Kudos to Carmack.

To hell with NASA

[Julian Morrison]

NASA is the problem - go read Kings of the High Frontier to understand the solution.

Re:So what? this technology is already available!

[Yarn]

Sure you will, just grab the pent' first.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dbretton]

Are you serious? When did 'dangerous' become 'illegal'?

When 'dangerous' can imply harm and injury to others, and sometimes yourself. It is illegal, in most states, for a citizen to discharge a firearm in public. It is illegal to drive recklessly.

Is crossing the road illegal? It can be quite dangerous you know!

Yes, it can be quite dangerous. And yes, it is illegal in many areas. It is called jaywalking. Crossing a busy intersection became a very dangerous activity, so some smart people got together and identified and marked areas on the road where people may cross the road with a mitigated risk. These areas are called 'crosswalks' (insert Dr. Evil finger quotes). A pedestrian in one of these 'crosswalks' (finger quotes) has the right of way, and motorists must yield to the pedestrian.

Anyway, getting back to the original post. Yes, it is illegal to run off and launch a craft into sub-orbital space. Why? Because it is dangerous. What if some yahoo decided to launch his garage rocket from his backyard, which is located next to LAX (Los Angeles airport)? He could hit something or kill someone! Not a good idea.

These rocket-heads have to acquire the appropriate permissions and clearances before firing off their garage rockets. At the least, I would assume that they need to get FAA clearance, which would involve providing them with a launch and flight plan. In addition, they would probably have to get clearance from the local authorities for both the launch and landing sites. They would also probably have to pay out of pocket expenses to have fire and ambulance personnel available, yadda yadda yadda

-D

Re:wtf does carmac know about rockets?

[xiana]

We experimented with adding the player velocity to the rocket velocity way back in QuakeWorld, and it just randomized play too much, and didn't quite look or feel right.

-Xian

Where are the Joke Posts?

[dbretton]

All of the /. joke posters must be home alone, chugging beers until their world becomes a haze of barley and hops and passes out.

Why do I say this? Because there are NO Carmack/Quake/Rocketry jokes.

Like:

New Poll:
Name of Carmack's first rocket:

FragFest
Pineapple Express
HAB (High Altitude Bastard)
RJ-101
BFR (Big F*n Rocket)
Doom-ed
CowboyNeal!

Or... "I hope that he leaves /noclip on with these rockets!"

Or... "What's the code to turn godmode on in his rocketship?"

Or... "Will he call the rockets that crash WADs?"

Or... "To Hell with outfitting the ship with a BFG, I'll be happy if he puts in a BFP (Big F*n Parachute)."

Or... "If the ship's AI is the same as the Quake bots, then I think I'll stick to driving"

Or... "Will a little network jack icon appear just before you crash and die?"

H2O2 affects on skin

[HopeOS]

I work with H2O2 regularly and I can tell you from experience that concentrations of 50% and down are comparatively benign. Concentrations of 30% and 50% will give you a nasty white rash if you come in contact with them. The rash forms within about 10 seconds of contact, faster if the concentration is higher. The rash last for anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour and then goes away. Meanwhile, the skin remains tender for some time afterwards.

Concentrations exceeding approximately 74% require more care and consideration, both in storage and handling.

-Hope

Re:wtf does carmac know about rockets?

[WNight]

I imagine it's like localized damage. I coded a simple (height of the shot on the bounding box) damage routine for Q1 and it played well in developer test, but when users got to it they found it felt very random. Someone would run into a room and spray nails around. Two people would take a few and be moderately hurt, one guy would take a single nail and fall over dead just because he got it in the head.

More realistic I suppose, but for weapons that aren't aimed precisely it just didn't seem right.

Maybe with railguns / sniper rifles, if you could balance the gameplay issues of insta-hit, one-shot-kill...