Slashdot Mirror


Armadillo Aero One Step Closer To Space

RobertB-DC writes "The folks at Armadillo Aerospace have taken another step toward the X-Prize, dropping their re-entry vehicle from 2000 feet with no major problems noted. As usual, the Armadillo crew documented the event with text, pictures and video, and the story is also covered by Space.com (though without as many cool technical details). It's a bumpy ride, though -- instruments recorded some 10 G's on touchdown."

213 comments

  1. 10 Gs? by LeoDV · · Score: 4, Funny

    Were their inertion dampening fields down?

    1. Re:10 Gs? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 0

      So it would feel like I was 10 times my normal weight? Yowza!

    2. Re:10 Gs? by inertia187 · · Score: 0

      Thank-you.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    3. Re:10 Gs? by zapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, 10G's is just enough to make a human pass out.

      This is measured not as a sudden impact, but as a multiple of gravity. IE: when you're in a plane and they pull up sharp, you experience maybe 2x gravity.

      --
      no comment
    4. Re:10 Gs? by Bugmaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, I recal reading somewhere that some roller coasters achieve 10g in places. Actually, I was on a roller coaster that had a warning sign posted; the sign said that the coaster achieves 6g and thus pregnant mothers with history of heart failure should not get on it. It was a fun ride.

      --
      >|<*:=
    5. Re:10 Gs? by mlyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      You, sir, are an idiot.

      As you can see from this link, the baseline for federal tests for preventing injury in automobile crashes is 130 G's-- this is after significant portions of the deceleration have been dampened by restraint systems and portions of the vehicle collapsing. Fighter pilots in pressure suits routinely pull 10Gs without even blacking out.

    6. Re:10 Gs? by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't 10 g's on touchdown cause death by deceleration trauma?

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
    7. Re:10 Gs? by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ten Gs? That's an insane amount, enough to kill any human, that's for sure
      No. Do some research.
      I still think the X-Prize starlights belongs to Scaled Composities and their White Knight/SpaceShipOne
      Keep in mind that Rutan's project will cost considerably more than 10 million, while Carmack's will cost a few million tops. Even if Rutan does win the X-Prize, if Carmack makes it to space then his will be greater achievement, IMHO.
    8. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, most people I know have trouble surviving in even 1 or 2 Gs.

    9. Re:10 Gs? by IvyMike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wouldn't 10 g's on touchdown cause death by deceleration trauma?

      Bah. During the cold war, the air force did studies using a rocket sled, led by Dr. John P. Stapp that showed that 10Gs is nowhere near fatal. From the page:

      By riding the decelerator sled himself, Dr. Stapp demonstrated that a human can withstand at least 45 G's in the forward position, with adequate harness. This is the highest known G force voluntarily encountered by a human.

      I suppose the "with adequate harness" part can't be stressed enough, but there's nothing automatically fatal about 10Gs.

      Dr. Stapp sounds like a pretty unique guy, and his work led to more survivable crashes in both aircraft and automobiles. I'm giving you One last chance to click on his biography, since I really want you to read it. :).

    10. Re:10 Gs? by Araxen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stole from usenet group sci.space.policy:
      "M. Scott" wrote in message news:...
      > John Carmack wrote:
      > > We did the helicopter drop test of our X-Prize vehicle with parachute
      > > system and crushable nose on Saturday.
      >
      > Great video! Congratulations on your progress and I look forward to
      > reading about more of your exploits!
      >
      > I have one question, though. If there had been a man in the vehicle
      > during that drop test, would he have been severely injured? The landing
      > looked rough-- much rougher than in the SA'03 nose cone test, for
      > instance.

      The acceleration spikes were only 10G, which is not much of a problem
      with a harness and padding. The roll-up-and-fall-back-down behavior
      would certainly be pretty rough, so we hope to reduce that
      behaviorwith some changes to the cabin top lip, the parachute, and the
      tail supports.

      The X-Prize could be had with the landing as-is.

      John Carmack

      Google link: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&threadm=c0e0a1dd.0307071735.5f09aa08%40p osting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DThe%2B acceleration%2Bspikes%2Bwere%2Bonly%2B10G%252C%2Bw hich%2Bis%2Bnot%2Bmuch%2Bof%2Ba%2Bproblem%26ie%3DU TF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSear ch )

    11. Re:10 Gs? by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is, those were G's realative to the person horizontally (perpendicular). When talking about vertical G's (parallel to the spine), a human can withstand far, far fewer G's. This is because our body isn't made to compress and the energy has to go somewhere. When taking G's head on, your body is good about bending and flexing to rid it self of the energy. When impacting vertically, pretty much the only mechanism your body has is to compress your spine. Pilots who land harshly often find themselves inches shorter and a life time of back and body problems.

    12. Re:10 Gs? by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maxing out at 10 Gs under controlled acceleration and deceleration is a far cry from 10 Gs splat on the ground!

      Also, while controlled accel is not likely to be fatal, it *can* do some damage. I remember reading the story of one of the high-speed rocket-sled experiments, ca.1960 or perhaps a bit before. I can't recall who rode the thing (it wasn't Stapp, tho), but a side effect of the high G was bleeding inside his eyes, so his vision was slightly pinked ever after.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:10 Gs? by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Funny
      This is the highest known G force voluntarily encountered by a human.

      Okay, i gotta know, what's the highest known G force _involuntarily_ encountered by a human, and how exactly did it happen? College prank gone horribly awry or what? Or maybe along the lines of "What's this button do?"

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    14. Re:10 Gs? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Okay, i gotta know, what's the highest known G force _involuntarily_ encountered by a human, and how exactly did it happen? "

      I belive some race car drivers have experianced 100 G's in crashes. Ones where the slammed into the outer wall at nearly full speed (ala 200mph). I remember some TLC or discovery special investigating how a driver survived such a crash.

      10 G's isn't to bad. Jet fighter pilots can pull 4-5 G's momentarily before blacking out. Those 10 G's would be very very short, not like holding a high speed turn for a while. I think some roller coasters pull 3-4 G's in some turns as well.

    15. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard the joke "What's heavier: 10 lbs of feathers or 10 lbs of rocks?"

      10 G is 10 G. I have no idea of what you mean by "controlled acceleration".

    16. Re:10 Gs? by domninus.DDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so just rotate the chair? its not like orientation would matter when they were in space.

    17. Re:10 Gs? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's correct! That would be one possible solution. Then again, that's a design issue rather than anything else.

    18. Re:10 Gs? by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      10Gs should be enough for anyone.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    19. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i just wanted you to know that i wouldnt have clicked the link if you hadnt brought it up again. good call man, thanks.

    20. Re:10 Gs? by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Jet fighter pilots can pull 4-5 G's momentarily before blacking out.

      They can go a fair bit higher than that. I saw a show on Discovery Wings not long ago that said Deke Slayton used to pull 9 Gs without a G-suit. (The "without a G-suit" part is a bit extreme, but the "9 Gs" part is kinda on the edge where some people will black out and some won't.) You might want to have a look at this page.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    21. Re:10 Gs? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      10 G's isn't to bad. Jet fighter pilots can pull 4-5 G's momentarily before blacking out.

      The F-16 is limited to 9G. It takes a G-suit, and special muscle and breathing techniques to sustain it for a while, but they sustain it longer than just a moment (I used to be in the airforce and saw HUD camera footage from dogfight training on a regular basis, during debriefings). I think that Israel had their F-16's set to pull a maximum of 10G's, IIRC.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    22. Re:10 Gs? by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      He means, having the acceleration start slow, build up to 10 G over a period of, say a minute, then slow back down. As opposed to crashing and instantaneously jumping from 1 G to 10 G. The former is much less stressful on the body than the latter.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    23. Re:10 Gs? by nietsch · · Score: 1

      no it will not. At landing the passengers are lying back-down horizontal to take the G-forces on impact.
      This has the nasy side effect that they have to be launched upside down. The nosecone of the vehicle is their crumple-zone to use for landing (instead of airbags)
      I think that they encountered this much G's because their landing was anything but smooth. The nosecone was partially bend instead of crumpled straight, and the vehicle nearly rolled head-up again. There was way to much pendulum action when hanging under the chute.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    24. Re:10 Gs? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      4-5 Gs can be tolerated without blacking out by many people. Fighter pilots with G-suits can take much more (around 8-9).

      I've done aerobatic training in a Bellanca Super Decathalon (a piston engined single engine light aircraft), and I can pull 4 G without any ill effect (apart from feeling a bit heavy of course!). The most I've ever pulled is 5.5G, and I've not blacked out/greyed out at that. However, it's quite individual. I took a friend for a ride, and he blacked out momentarily during the bottom part of a split-S (roll inverted and pull out) where we got up to 4.5G. Going from negative G to positive G will make me grey out at a much lower level - I greyed out during the recovery from an inverted spin only pulling +4G on the recovery.

      A momentary 10G would be very uncomfortable, but it shouldn't be harmful.

    25. Re:10 Gs? by shatfield · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's not the fall that kills you -- it's that sudden stop at the end ;-)

      --
      "To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
    26. Re:10 Gs? by Eight+01 · · Score: 1

      Pendulum or no, any significant wind on landing is going to cause the nose-cone to bend (instead of crush).

    27. Re:10 Gs? by MichaelDelving · · Score: 1

      What a bloodthirsty kid:

      '..my question is how much g's does it take for the skin to fall off a human's body?'

      Probably worthy enough research, but hellish death for the volunteer research subjects.

    28. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do 9Gs for a couple of seconds vertically. It tends to make you pass out, but there are a bunch of energy dissipation spots vertically. Thing like your joints, for instance. Your musculature, too.

    29. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highest? Couple of thousand. That's when you fall off a mountain and splatter on the rock ledge below, at 200mph or so.

      It's not the fall, it's the terminal deceleration.

    30. Re:10 Gs? by risacher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in my flying days, I routinely pulled sustained 6.5 G turns without a G-suit or doing the proper Anti-G Straining Manouver. (AGSM) Some people just have a higher resting G-tolerance than others. Some of my classmates reported routinely "graying out" at as little as 4 G. ("Graying out" is where you progressively lose your peripheral vision.) With a proper G-strain (flexing leg and abdominal muscles to force blood up into cranium), pilots can easily do 6-7 G.

      I only flew with a G suit once, and it was before I went to flight training (I was a back-seat passenger). We pulled 7 Gs on the sortie. The suit squeezed my legs hard enough that it felt like I would have bruises. I didn't black out.

      It does not seem unreasonable at all to me that some trained pilots could pull 9 Gs without a suit.

      --

      "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."

    31. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Stapp was trying to show was indeed that the human body could with stand a significant acceleration but over short intervals. He was trying to prove that over very short time intervals (fractions of a second) the human body could withstand 'G-Loads' much higher than anyone believed.

      A while back the discovery channel had a show regarding Dr. Stapp and his work. They showed footage of the 'decelerator sled' and it was rather amazing. After the test Stapp was very beat up and spent a while in recovery. Of his injuries the most noticeable to me was the two black eyes he received from the force on his eyes pulling them out of the sockets.

      AC

    32. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's the jerk (time derivative of acceleration), man!

    33. Re:10 Gs? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > ..my question is how much g's does it take for the skin to fall off a human's body?'
      >Probably worthy enough research, but hellish death for the volunteer research subjects

      Well, there are gonna be an awful lot of telemarketers out of work in the real near future, aren't there?

      (Oh, wait, he said human body. Aaw, fuggit. Telemarketers should be close enough. Besides, I already poured the concrete and rented the rocket sled.)

    34. Re:10 Gs? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      The orientation does matter when using the controls, which are placed in the front of the cabin.

      However, I don't think it's anything to worry about. It's been calculated and the safety margin is perfectly adequate. Plus, the chair is really cool. :-)

    35. Re:10 Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anne Coulter is a racist cow.

    36. Re:10 Gs? by Lux · · Score: 1

      >Pilots who land harshly often find themselves inches
      >shorter and a life time of back and body problems.

      So do non-pilots.

    37. Re:10 Gs? by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe someone mod'ed your intentional mis-information as "informative"!

      Do you really believe that changing the acceleration of acceleration makes that final acceleration any less harmful to the human body? 10 G will do less damage to YOU if you experience it all at once for less than one second, vs. experiencing it (gradually or not) for a full two minutes.

      Please, go and try it both ways for me and report back on here if you survive.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
  2. Slashdot'ed Already by Vesperi · · Score: 1

    Damn, like 3 comments.....

    --
    "Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
    1. Re:Slashdot'ed Already by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      They knew who to blame! :) See quote below:

      'Too many users... blah blah blah

      Probable cause: http://www.slashdot.org

      Try again in a few seconds...

      -xian@idsoftware.com '

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  3. Slashdotted already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps they dropped their server from 2000 feet also!

    1. Re:Slashdotted already! by Magila · · Score: 1

      Steve Gibson must have been carrying it.

  4. Finally! by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now they're getting somewhere. John Carmack finally quit trying to win the prize by running at brick walls and firing a Stinger missile at the ground.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Finally! by lars-o-matic · · Score: 1

      aka "frog blast the vent core"?

      heh. Makes me want to fire up Marathon for the first time in ages...

      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, AKA quake rocket jumping.

    3. Re:Finally! by TotallyUseless · · Score: 1

      this is already modded to +5 so i cant mod it more. just wanted to let you know, this was one of the funniest things i have ever read on slashdot. congrats

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    4. Re:Finally! by MousePotato · · Score: 2, Funny
      damn... I wish i thought of that... i was thinking he did one of these:
      ~GOD
      ~FLY
      ~NOCLIP
      ~GIVE R 500
      ~GIVE H 200
      ~IMPULSE 9
    5. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, give the poor Mac user a break. Marathon's probably the only FPS he's ever seen. ;)

  5. Break even? by grennis · · Score: 5, Funny
    instruments recorded some 10 G's on touchdown

    I'm not sure how much it costs to put this thing up. But, at 10 G's per touchdown, a bunch of more of these and they may get close to breaking even!

    1. Re:Break even? by ADOT+Troll · · Score: 1

      Isn't that pretty low? Pilots can sustain 9G while flying (not very easily, but they can do it), and Colonel John Paul Stapp took 40Gs in a rocket sled [stapp.org] in 1951! I wouldn't be too worried about 10...

  6. What does 10G's have to with bumpiness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It could be a very smooth, fast drop.

    1. Re:What does 10G's have to with bumpiness? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      well, since the 10Gs were only at touchdown, id say thats at least one bump. sure, it could be a very gradual bump, but I doubt it. and anyways, any maneuver that produces 10Gs in the atmosphere is gonna be bumpy due to turbulence and air density.

    2. Re:What does 10G's have to with bumpiness? by FriedaHogworthy · · Score: 1

      It could be a very smooth, fast drop.

      The bumpy part comes when you hit the ground.

    3. Re:What does 10G's have to with bumpiness? by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      It's that 10G bit at the end that "bumpiness" refers to. Maybe even bumps, plural, if it bounces or skips/slides (easy to pick up sideways motion when you've got the that much atmosphere to fall through by parachute).

    4. Re:What does 10G's have to with bumpiness? by TimeZone · · Score: 1
      Technically, this guy's right. "G"s are acceleration, the term that describes "bumpiness" would be "jerk", and is the derivative of acceleration wrt to time.
      ds/dt = velocity
      dv/dt = acceleration
      da/dt = jerk

      TimeZone

  7. Something just occurred to me by carl67lp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lately, we've been hearing more and more about the X Prize and the amateur (and not-so-amateur) aerospace engineers taking part.

    I suspect that the recent projects are to the government-sponsored space programs as open source software is to commercial software. True, the fundamental ideas /might/ be different, but the goals are the same: Take something that you can't have general access to, make it your own, and make it better. Then contribute that idea to the general public.

    In an era when people are becoming more and more concerned with manned space flight, I think projects and contests like this are the only way possible to get humanity into the heavens. Governments will always be under pressure to reduce spending; it will only be with enthusiasts that we make it to our proper place in space.

    (This isn't to say, of course, that a non-government-sponsored flight will be the first to Mars. This is simply to say that it will be the space enthusiasts who shed the light on the important facts about space and its wealth of knowledge.)

    1. Re:Something just occurred to me by RocketScientist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (extremely off-topic reply follows) Governments aren't under pressure to reduce spending. Governments are under presure to increase spending to things like invading other countries, giving money and food to people who don't work, figuring out new and different ways to screw citizens out of natural resources, "saving the environment", and studies to make sure that we're all aware that drinking beer is bad for us. So they have to simultaneously tax the crap out of anybody that makes money and cut a lot of things that are really worthwhile, like pure research and rocket science.

      Private enterprise really is the best way to get to space. I just hope when they colonize mars they remember exactly why a government that that could get to the moon can't even reliably send people into orbit and bring them back anymore, and set up their government with the additional checks and balances to keep from repeating those mistakes.

      I'm not bitter or anything though. Just because it's right after the end of a quarter and all.

    2. Re:Something just occurred to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Governments will always be under pressure to reduce spending

      usbudget.historical.xls

      The only years that government spending have gone down(adjusted for inflation) are 1945-48, 1953-56 and 1968-70.

      The pressure they are under is not to reduce spending, it is who gets the handouts.

    3. Re:Something just occurred to me by Plix · · Score: 1

      "Governments" in this context means the United States. Lets face it, the Russian space program is in financial ruin (along with the rest of the country) and the rest of the space programs in the world are far behind that (even if not in technology, then certainly in experience) of the US.

      That said, because of recent events (the Columbia disaster) NASA is under even more fire. The public is crying for increased safty from an agency with a continually reduced budget (state of the economy, republican president, whatever you want to blame it on) and NASA simply cannot afford to continue manned space flight - the recoil from another accident would be disasterous. It has been said elsewhere (and it's quite true) that private enterprise is the only avenue through which manned space exploration can be continued reasonably because PR damage control has less far-reaching implications with respect to a private organization and said organization does not have to explain it's spending to tax payers.

    4. Re:Something just occurred to me by fname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a very good point. The government resources clearly outmatch any private company at this point, and probably will for some time. The big problem is, space stuff is risky and expensive, and no one can really see the return on capital that they need to take the risks. Boeing, Lockheed, et.al. always need some government contracts to pay for the development before it makes sense to build a new rocket.

      Of course, the engineers at NASA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., are brilliant, and I'm sure they'd love to be doing this stuff. But that's not what Boeing pays them to do. and real rockets are a lot more expensive than computers. Plus, you can try new things and let them fail fairly risk-free in the computer world; not true in rocket science.

      So while these "amateur" (quotes is b/c none of these groups are really amateurs. They are professionals doing this on the side) will come up with some very clever ideas, the government may be in the best position to exploit them. Which is fine, and I bet these guys would be happy if that were there legacy. And if Armadillo, or more likely Scaled Composites, comes up w/ a sustainable business propoisition, then this will get a lot more interesting.

      [ Warning: Rocket Science humor ahead. ] In fact, if things go right, after the X-prize is won, this space thing will take off like a rocket-- and more like a Delta II-heavy than a Delta IV medium, if you know what I mean!

    5. Re:Something just occurred to me by taniwha · · Score: 1
      I think you're right in general - the main problems I've seen with all the non-amateur 'little guys' (think rotorroc etc etc) is that they think too big and are underfunded - it sort of goes like this - Company X has a great idea on paper, gets a little money builds a prototype (if they don't go overbudget), something goes wrong, they fold. Rinse, repeat.

      The great thing about the 'amateurs' like Armadillo, JPA etc etc is that they take baby steps, and can afford to fail more than once, they're not betting the farm on one prototype

    6. Re:Something just occurred to me by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Rockets got where they are today because some government decided it was neat to have a high-speed, hard to defend, way of killing people.

      The V2 was not done by private enterprise. Or Saturn V. Sorry to bust your ultra-liberal bubble.

      FWIW I agree with you that for space to be explored properly it must ultimately be done by private enterprise. Competition and diversity are key. The launch market should be liberalized and regulations for space launches should be relaxed.

      PS: Giving food for people who do not work is good for everyone unlike what you think. It may not be 100% fair for those who work but it is a compromise. If food was more scarce this would be an issue. Food is abundant in our present Western societies. The fact is people are paid not to produce and food is sent to the trash. Giving some away to improve social stability is good policy.

    7. Re:Something just occurred to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason why the amatuer groups cannot launch a space vehicle. We know it can be done; we know the science; all there is left is the engineering problem.

      And maybe the will of the people to step up and accomplish something they've told they could not have done.

      -b

    8. Re:Something just occurred to me by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to bust your ultra-liberal bubble.

      Usually an anti-government, pro-business standpoint is not so much liberal as it is conservative. Just thought I'd clear that up.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    9. Re:Something just occurred to me by stmfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In an era when people are becoming more and more concerned with manned space flight, I think projects and contests like this are the only way possible to get humanity into the heavens. Governments will always be under pressure to reduce spending; it will only be with enthusiasts that we make it to our proper place in space.

      Government is not under any real pressure to reduce spending, they are under internal pressures to maintain control. Enthusiasts are possibly the only ones that will ever find a way for humanity to get into space. Governments are only funding space projects to appease the curiosity of the masses and maintain control of the technology.

      Look around the world today at the way government is actively acquiring a monopoly on force. Do you think anyone in government looks forward to an easy way for terrorists with rocks to obtain Earth orbit?

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    10. Re:Something just occurred to me by Larsing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually an anti-government, pro-business standpoint is not so much liberal as it is conservative

      No, that's liberal. Liberal as in free. Free from regulation. Market/capitalist liberal. As most countries/economies are quite heavily regulated (even the USA), an anti regualtion stand-point is (market/capitalist) liberal.

      As for conservativism, it depends on what you are conserving. In Soviet Russia, comunism was conservative. With a "middle way" government, getting attacked by opposition from both sides, what one side would find conservative, the other would find liberal or socialist (or what ever...).

      Just my 0.2c

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    11. Re:Something just occurred to me by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      So where is BIll Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, and all the other 50,000 millionaires out there that do NOTHING but sit back and count their money coming in, and perhaps do a little charity for tax reasons of course.

      Poo.... so much for human achievement, all this money and talent, but no push by people with the dosh. All they want is $45m luxury boats, like greg norman.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    12. Re:Something just occurred to me by deanthebean · · Score: 1

      You're right about space travel being dangerous. One thing I have always wondered is what happens when someone dies in a private space flight?

      From a money stand point the lawsuits and insurence rates would break the company. People could even cry about 'the children' and get the government to regulate space travel very heavily, perhaps even ban it all together...

      Could be a scary day.

    13. Re:Something just occurred to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no fucking clue.

      Let's see the charitable donations from your tax return last year.

    14. Re:Something just occurred to me by Orne · · Score: 1

      "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

      In the USA, a modern classic liberal would really follow the libertarian party, whereas the american liberal is more socialist authoritarian. Amusingly, the american conservative is more 'liberal' than the liberal, because they are the ones defining new processes of governing: promoting independance by reducing welfare, teacher and school accountability through testing, parent's school choice through vouchers, etc. One might even consider they are more 'progressive' than the party that claims that phrase as it's own.

      Liberal is to Change as Conservative is to Static. Unfortunately, as words become buzzwords, words become redefined and no longer mean what they once did.

      As far as Russia goes, Communism was liberal with respect to the old monarchy, yet after a few decades, it became too conservative in its inability to adapt to modern market forces, and collapsed. It's a lesson of beaurocracy that we in the USA should heed...

  8. Now I Know by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

    What Carmack's choice in sneakers is.....

    http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2003_07_05/2 00 3-07-05_f.jpg

    1. Re:Now I Know by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1
      Too many users... blah blah blah

      Probable cause: http://www.slashdot.org

      Try again in a few seconds...

      -xian@idsoftware.com

      This doesn't tell me anything about his sneakers.

  9. ROFLOL by matth · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the website:

    Too many users... blah blah blah

    Probable cause: http://www.slashdot.org

    Try again in a few seconds...

    -xian@idsoftware.com

  10. Google cache... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is armadilloaerospace.com already down?

    Here's the google cache

  11. In case of Slashdotting by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 2, Informative

    This links right to the video and the pics are here

    1. Re:In case of Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you retarded? If the website goes down (and it did, yes, even with your magic retarded links) linking to something on the website is worthless. Fool.

    2. Re:In case of Slashdotting by The+Dobber · · Score: 0, Redundant


      Thanks for pointing that out, Mr T.

    3. Re:In case of Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant. -mb.

  12. 10 G's presents a real barrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..it'll be a while before any boyband rock stars make this trip. Sigh.

    At least contests like this *slightly* increases the chance I'll ever see space travel for the masses in my lifetime.

    1. Re:10 G's presents a real barrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe boy band rock stars can withstand almost infinite deceleration.

      Just give me one and I'll prove it with this cannon and brick wall...

  13. Full text, posting as AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Helicopter Drop Test

    http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Ho me/Widget`s Corner?news_id=214

    We finished up all of the prep work for the vehicle on Tuesday. We welded in strapping points to hold 600 pounds of passenger sandbags in the cabin area, and we mounted five 45 pound Olympic barbell plates on a peg at the end to simulate the weight of the final engines, plumbing, and backup recovery system that will be on the full size vehicle. We mounted four 2 throat engine shells as placeholders. Total weight is just under 2400 pounds. We use a combination of multiple chain hoists, a palette jack, and a forklift to move the full vehicle around and get it up on the trailer, but we did wind up breaking one of the castor wheels that we had mounted on our tank cradle. If we wind up having to use the 1600 gallon propellant tank (the current one is 850 gallons), we arent going to be able to stand the vehicle up under the main girder inside our shop, which will be inconvenient.

    On Saturday, we headed out to our test site for the drop test. There were quite a few stares on the road in transit We had a few spatters of rain, and the wind occasionally gusted to 12 knots, but we were able to perform the drop in relatively calm 6 knot winds.

    Anna rented a big RV for the day, which was very worthwhile. It was nice to be able to take a break in an air-conditioned space.

    5 State Helicopters arrived with a big Sikorsky for the lifting. It was very convenient that they were based close by, and didnt have a problem with our unusual application (although they did have us contact the local mayor and sheriff for explicit permission). We were very impressed with the precision that they were able to do the lifting we were afraid that the vehicle might get dragged or bounced on the crush cone, which could buckle it before the test even started, but they were able to perfectly pivot it up on the nose, and gently lift it off the ground. If we had known they were that precise, we probably could have skipped renting the forklift truck for recovery and just had them lower the rocket back onto the trailer after the test.

    We made several 18 diameter test parachutes that were weighted to drift at about the same rate that the full size parachute was expected to fall. We did the test drop from 1500 AGL, under the assumption that the big vehicle would fall several hundred feet before the main chute was fully deployed. The landing point for the test parachute was satisfactory, so we planned the full vehicle drop for 2000 AGL. Neil rode in the helicopter to do the parachute releasing, and Anna hung out the side of the helicopter (with a safety strap) to get aerial footage.

    We had to abort our first attempt to drop the vehicle, because the line that we ran from the helicopter to the Sea-Catch toggle release above the rocket had wrapped itself around the chain so many times that Neil couldnt pull it hard enough to trigger the release. This was fixed by tying loose loops of plastic every few feet along the chain, which kept the pull-line in place.

    On the second try, the release worked perfectly. You can clearly see the naturally unstable aerodynamics of the vehicle, as it starts to tip over almost immediately after release. We all held our breath as it started to fall, but the drogue immediately inflated and started pulling the main canopy out. It was nine seconds from release to full canopy inflation. The opening shock was negligible, barely hitting 2Gs. For high altitude flights, we are aiming for a 200 mph terminal velocity under the stabilizer drogue at the time of main canopy deployment, so opening shock will be much greater then.

    The wake of the main canopy is so great that the deployment drogue just rests on the canopy during descent, without any inflation at all. The real deployment system will have a much longe

    1. Re:Full text, posting as AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this in case the google cache goes down WTF???

    2. Re:Full text, posting as AC by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that I always read about 1 or 2 X Prize competitors. Armadillo joined the race at the same time ARCA did but just because slashdot people like quake Armadillo gets all the glory.

    3. Re:Full text, posting as AC by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Why is it that I always read about 1 or 2 X Prize competitors.

      Because Armadillo is the most open about their development. Every week they tell you about their successes and failures, thus, we know when there is something significant to report.

      If ARCA or whoever doesn't release regular news, exactly what is supposed to be reported?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  14. Re:Ever see a dead Armadillo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck on not crashing and burning, Armadillo Aerospace!

    If their rocket is anything like their webserver the passengers will be dead at the first sign of trouble.

  15. 10 g's? So what! by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

    That's not bad at all. That's about what you get when you plop down in a chair.

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...
    1. Re:10 g's? So what! by charnov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends on many milliseconds of duration. Humans have been shown to take 35 G's for very short durations (belted head on collision at 50 mph for example), but anything over about a 100 milliseconds and your organs (and bones) tend to go a little mushy.

      --
      [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  16. Re:Ever see a dead Armadillo? by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've seen a dead armadillo, but I've never seen a dead armadillo cooked in rocket fuel. That would be new.

  17. Indeed it landed, by spudchucker · · Score: 0, Funny

    apparently on their webserver.

  18. Slashdotted? by Snoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is the site slashdotted already or did they drop the vehicle on their web server?

  19. 10 Gs by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Crash rated seats for military helicopters are rated to take 50G down to 20G so I wouldn't think 10G would be a problem to deal with.

    1. Re:10 Gs by twostar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      except that they've only fallen 2000ft, any guesses as to if the test vehicle made it to terminal velocity?

    2. Re:10 Gs by thebigmacd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No guess...an answer. The article at space.com shows the craft PARACHUTING to the ground. I'm sure terminal velocity was attained quite quickly. Ewwww...10 Gs upon landing, WITH a parachute.

    3. Re:10 Gs by child_of_mercy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      thats a drogue design issue, and comes back to weight questions, its easily done if weight is no object (as with most things in spacecraft design)

      but 100 yards of kevlar ribbon will bring terminal velocity down a long, long ways.

      and there are better designs still.

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    4. Re:10 Gs by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the weak link here for most people here would be their own posteriors. I've personally only experienced maybe 3 Gs or so on various carnival rides, and with those I'm pretty much on my back. Nobody this side of a fighter pilot does anywhere near 10 Gs, especially in a near-sitting position. Heck, not even astronauts do that any more.

    5. Re:10 Gs by Magila · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 10G jolt isn't as bad as it sounds, figher pilots only have to worry because they experiance high Gs for relativly long periods of time. People can take 20Gs or more over a fraction of a second without too much trouble assuming they're well restrained.

    6. Re:10 Gs by rabtech · · Score: 1

      Yes, what many people don't realize is that when a hard drive falls off a desk and hits the ground it can be 50-100Gs worth of force for a fraction of a second. Now you know why they rate them for 200Gs.

      During a car crash, or something like that the G-forces are, momentarily, very high. But it doesn't last long enough to do any real damage in most cases.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  20. Armadillos in Space by jrivar59 · · Score: 1

    When is that going to be the headline?

  21. Reinventing the wheel by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Why isn't NASA coming out with a new orbiter. Shouldn't there be one by now?

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Reinventing the wheel by HyperMind · · Score: 1

      Because of the costs of developing the hardware in the first place. That, and the collosal failure of the Space Shuttle concept to live up to the over-stated sales hype.

  22. In case of slashdotting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    post links to the slashdotted site? The fuck?

    1. Re:In case of slashdotting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media are on a different server. I am getting the video at 55KB/s and I can't access the web site.

  23. some 10G's??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    It's a bumpy ride, though -- instruments recorded some 10 G's on touchdown.

    Good thing they only recorded some 10 G's. If those 10 G's had been present all over the craft, who knows what kind of complications could have arisen. I'm sure the design team will find a way to spread those 10 G's throughout the craft, reducing the overall readings to a manageable 2 or 3 G's.

  24. sheesh... by quan74 · · Score: 1

    I for one hope their aircraft holds up to the rigors of space flight better than their site holds up to a slashdotting.
    I suppose they're spending all their money on the project and not their website though :)

    Anyway, my money is on Burt Ratan and the crew at Scaled Composites. They seem to have a solid idea and enough backing to actually get this done. Not to mention they have a cooler name (who ever heard of a flying armadillo?).

    1. Re:sheesh... by Frodo2002 · · Score: 1

      Its Burt Rutan

    2. Re:sheesh... by Ananee · · Score: 1

      who ever heard of a flying armadillo? That's just it, nobody'd heard of a flying armadillo YET. But when we do, it will be them, and they'll live in infamy... Or not.

    3. Re:sheesh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to sound superficial here, but Rutan's design is ugly as sin. It's got more in common with a spaceship design from the 1950s than it does with anything modern.

    4. Re:sheesh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, everyone knows that if you kick an
      armadillo hard enough it'll fly....for a while.

  25. The Problem is... by Frodo2002 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..The problem with these people is that their movie clips are waaaay too large. They could reduce their movie file sizes by a factor of 5. I am sure that would alleviate some of the pressure on their server... Has noone pointed this out to them?

  26. Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by Darth_Foo · · Score: 5, Informative

    John Carmack is a semi-regular poster to sci.space.policy on usenet; he's posted several times today with details of his test plans and schedules. Even if the company site is slashdotted, go do a Google Groups search on him and the sci.space.* groups and you'll get all his publically-available info, straight from the source.

    1. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carmack posts on slashdot also...

      http://slashdot.org/~John%20Carmack

    2. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by Araxen · · Score: 1

      How many of you guys just subscribed to sci.space.policy and usenet? I know I did!

    3. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 1

      Man, it's like his posts here about video cards.
      -----
      Our 2' diameter subscale vehicle is ready to test almost all the primary required systems -- servo valve differential throttling (as opposed to the solenoid based differential throttling used on our previous systems) [of course!], drogue cannon stabilization after burnout, and main canopy release at a particular altitude. We should also be able to fly that transonic. We would have flown it by now if our propellant issues were resolved.
      -----

      Whatever. I'll just watch the videos and ooh and ahh. Everything he types makes me feel like a retard.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    4. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by danheskett · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Whatever. I'll just watch the videos and ooh and ahh. Everything he types makes me feel like a retard.

      You think that's an accident?

      I am not for dumbing anything down, but there is a certain class of well-educated well-spoken articulate people who go out of thier way to subjugate and dominate others via their written and spoken words. Sometimes it's subtle, sometime's its glaring.

      The worst offenders here are science people, followed closely by technical people. Mix those together, and you get Carmack. He is a brilliant guy, and I lot of what I've seen him write directed to the general public seems to be overly complex.

      The quote you provide is a good example. He could have said: "Our scaled down 2'-diameter model is almost ready to be tested. We changed the throttling to use servo valves instead of the solenoid valves we used up to now. Drogue cannon stabilization after burnout is ready to be tested, as well as the altitude-aware canopy (parachute) release system. We should be able to fly the model transonic -- that is at speeds approaching or slightly above the speed of sound. We would have flown it by now but we have problems with the propellant."

      Instead, he used unnecessary jargon, made complex technical decisions seem trivial (ie, "of course"), and used long complex sentences alternated against short sparse sentences. All of it adds up to someone who is way to comfortable writing with the goal of creating a specific result regardless of content. People often do this in business proposals, contracts, and editorials. The idea is to create a feeling of the writer being correct, smart, or "on top of things" without examining the content of the message.

      It's okay to write technical for a technical crowd. And it's okay to write with unnecessary "flourish" if you are trying to impress yourself or pass a college-level writing class. In the real world, it's best to write for real humans. Write what you mean, write it like it would be spoken, and write it for easy comprehension. Just my two cents on something that has always bugged me about Carmack.

      That said, Carmack is to programming as Jesus is to Christians :-).

    5. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 1

      You think that's an accident?

      No, but I don't think he's doing it to impress me. You say later that It's okay to write technical for a technical crowd, and I totally agree. I think he is writing for a technical crowd there. There were undoubtedly people who understood exactly what he was saying, whereas I'm reading from the perspective of someone who likes to see things fly into the air, and that's about the limit of my knowledge. I have nothing of value to add, so I'm not the one he should be writing for anyway.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    6. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      I fully agree with you here. I don't think your insightful comment is off-topic, either.
    7. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      He is writing for a technical crowd.

      You might not think that differential throttling of his servo valve is important, but clearly he does.

      Also, extra elucidation on what the details is not always welcomed if you are a technical person trying to read fast. (Like, "get to the point!").

      Your editorial on his "of course" is from the perspective of somebody who is not in the inside. He may be kicking himself for doing something else previously, or he is just emphasising a point that he may have been making all the time.

      I am a technical person doing a technical job. I don't care if other people don't understand my writing as long as what I say is clear to the people who are genuinely interested in the details of my work. Some journals actually do not accept papers that are more than certain number of pages long, so you have to be concise and to the point. If one is interested enough and do not understand, then one would go and find it out for oneself, and learn something in the process.

      I am a science person, and if you are interested in what I do, I will be more than happy to describe to you my research to whatever detail (or none) that you want. But when I write, it's a completely different matter : I write to bring a point across to someone who cares about the details not just the "Big picture" (for that you read NYT.)

      And that's what Carmack is doing. Your insinuation that he is intentionally writing using jargon to make people feel like a retard is totally uncalled for.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    8. Re:Info direct from the armadillo's mouth . . . by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

      Uh, that sounds like perfectly reasonable, expressive use of technical terminology. He was even kind enough to define "transonic" for us. If you had a hard time deciphering it, I suggest taking a nap. I once worked on a solar car project with some people whose technical knowledge was far beyond my own, but I could always decipher their lingo if I was wide awake.

  27. Gimme a Break by Blastus · · Score: 1

    The freakin thing is powered by hydrogen peroxide and crash lands on it's nose. Are you goin up in it? Rutan has the X prize wrapped up.

    --
    Good Grief. - Charles Brown
  28. I want Doom 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stop playing with those rocket thingys and go finish your job!

  29. Obligatory Physics snob comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should actually be written "10 g's", with 'g' in lower case, as this refers to 10 times the normal acceleration, while "G" the capital letter refers to something entirely different.

    1. Re:Obligatory Physics snob comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, 'G' as in 'Geek.'

  30. 10Gs? by arhines · · Score: 1

    Isn't that pretty low? Pilots can sustain 9G while flying (not very easily, but they can do it), and Colonel John Paul Stapp took 40Gs in a rocket sled in 1951! I wouldn't be too worried about 10...

    1. Re:10Gs? by The+Dobber · · Score: 4, Funny


      Yeah, but they are probably in pretty good physical condition. Your average geek gets woozie just bending over to pick up that stray cheese doodle.

    2. Re:10Gs? by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I keep seeing people quote those high g numbers from historic tests of days past. One of the most critical factors in determining how fatal a g rating is on a human, is not only the g's, but the duration the g's were sustained. For example, a human can take insanely high g's over a very finite duration. Those same g's which may of only bruised and bloodied your body may have killed you if the same g's were sustained for twice the duration.

    3. Re:10Gs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post makes no sense.

      Twice a very finite duration is still a very finite duration. And I doubt someone could take insanely high g's for the very finite duration of say 100 years.

      Ask Beowulf Shafer for more details.

  31. I Smell A Rat by wbav · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else think this is wrong? When touching down 10 G's? The most G's would be on lift off, not touch down, and 10 is just plain nuts. Come on. If you think of a plane, and touchdown, you are going in the same direction of gravity, not against it.

    I mean conceptually, the article doesn't make sense, and I hope people will realize that.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
    1. Re:I Smell A Rat by putaro · · Score: 1

      It's called sudden deceleration. Look into it.

    2. Re:I Smell A Rat by Tmack · · Score: 4, Informative
      uhh ever take physics? g forces are a measure of acceleration in reference to the standard acceleration of freefall on earth. Since they are saying 10g's at touchdown, that means the acceleration at tuchdown is 10*g(9.8M/s/s), or about 98M/s/s. Since mass*acceleration=force, your mass*98m/s/s==the downward force you would create on this landing. Using g's, you remove the unit dependance, making it easier to create estimates such as "at 10g's a person weighing 180Lbs would feel like they weigh 1800Lbs". What is also important but not mentioned is the duration and delta of this acceleration.

      tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    3. Re:I Smell A Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you watch the video? The craft smashes straight down into the ground. It does not land on wheels.

    4. Re:I Smell A Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Naah, the problem is that you don't make sense. The G force when landing is a deceleration. If you were doing 10 metres per second and stopped in one tenth of a second that would be 10 G, and you would possibly feel bruised but would usually survive.


      OTOH, if they could manage ten G going upwards, all they have to do is maintain that for about thirteen minutes and they would be in orbit. But ten G for that long is rather demanding...

    5. Re:I Smell A Rat by lurking · · Score: 1

      Well..... When a moving object mects meets an immovable object. What happens?

    6. Re:I Smell A Rat by okayplayer · · Score: 1
      I just had to ask... Did you ever take physics? If you did, you would remember that there is not such thing as, "deceleration." I promise, this is not intended as a mean post put my physics professor would flunk you if he heard you say, "deceleration". For clarification purposes, its negative acceleration. Thanks.

      --
      What a horrible thing the ESRB just did to the game industry.
    7. Re:I Smell A Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No object is immovable. Even the Earth can be moved (hear of the phrase "give me a lever big enough and I can move the world"?) It just takes a much larger force to move the earth the same distance as a person in the same period of time.

    8. Re:I Smell A Rat by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Beautiful.

      There should be a +1:Troll modifier for well crafted comments such as this.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    9. Re:I Smell A Rat by wbav · · Score: 1

      Glad you liked it.

      Just goes to show, even after working an 11 hour day, my mind can shut down so completely that even I don't realize what I'm saying.

      --

      =================
      Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
  32. You're absolutely right. by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Visit www.scaled.com and you'll see who's going to win the X-Prize. Burt Rutan designer of the famous Voyager, the plane that made the first non-stop flight around the world.

    This guy has been engineering exceptional aircraft for years. Father of one of the most radical and popular homebuilt aircraft designs ever.

    J.C. has an interesting background and obviously the mind of an engineer, but no one is going to catch up with Rutan's design which resembles the X-15 project of the 1960's.

    If someone at Scaled Composites is reading... Can I have a job? Yeah, like that will happen...

    1. Re:You're absolutely right. by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but no one is going to catch up with Rutan's design
      No one outside of Rutan's organisation really knows how far advanced Rutan's project is, so it's a bit hard to say if he's in the lead or not. Certainly when it was first announced and the website went up there were several pictures that had been doctored to make it look like things where more advanced than they actually were. Rutan lost some credibility in my eyes with that.
    2. Re:You're absolutely right. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll give it to Rutan's Scaled Composites group, too. =)

      Mostly because unlike most of their competitors, Rutan's extensive experience with highly-advanced aerospace materials and unusual aircraft design shows he has the expertise that can build a successful X-Prize competitor. Besides, the research from SpaceShipOne could evolve into something that people long for: relatively cheap access into Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

      There were proposals to build a small spaceplane in the late 1980's that could fly into space from the back of a modified 747 that has been fitted with a rocket motor that provides the initial boost before the spaceplane launches from the 747 and flies on its own power to LEO; Rutan has the expertise to build such a vehicle, one that could carry as many as seven crew or its equivalent cargo load to the International Space Station.

    3. Re:You're absolutely right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an obvious doctor job, too. They certainly weren't trying to pull a smoke and mirrors thing. I'd still put my money on Burt.

    4. Re:You're absolutely right. by HenryWirz · · Score: 1

      I attended a talk given by Rutan (at EAA Oshkosh) back when the XPrise was announced. He said he's gonna win it and once we see his solution, we will be amazed at how simple it was. Now that was back in 1996, since then he has built Proteus which was just a prototype for The White Night He's been thinking about this for quite some time. I bet he takes the prise this year.

      I can hardly wait to hear what he is gonna say this year at Oshkosh His talks are always entertaining and insightful.

  33. Solution to 10g touchdown by Pacorro · · Score: 1

    Put Carmack on the controls, and try a rocket jump move to reduce the g's.

  34. Fighter pilots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...are trained to cope with up to 9G's in combat dogfighting. Above that, pilots start to pass out.

    However - as pointed out elsewhere, *duration* is also important. If you have squishy seats, for example, they can easily reduce the force of a brief jolt (say, touching down) - but after a fraction of a second, they compress and the occupant has to take the full force themselves.

    In other words: 9G's isn't too much, especially for a first flight. It's perfectly survivable (unless you're like 600lb - you'd burst) but I'm sure they'll soften it out a little by the time they fly for real.

  35. Missin the Point by Blastus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The X prize is about paving the way for paying customers to get to space. It's about developing a cheap re-usable space craft to do it. Lighting off hair chemicals for launches and crashing for landings? You gonna pony up for that? Go ahead. I'll call Rutan for my flight, thanks.

    --
    Good Grief. - Charles Brown
  36. it run linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it run linux?

  37. K.I.S.S. by jayrtfm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That X-15ish engineering may be Scaled's achellies heel. Remember that the well financed front-runner for the Orteig prize crashed the day before Lindberg took off.

    I'm hopeing that both teams get their first launch within days of eachother, so that a media frenzy occurs before the winning launch.

  38. Oh wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    parachutes work.

  39. Late again by apsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RocketForge had a link to this posted 3 days ago! So I got to see the video before you guys slashdotted the server :-)

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

  40. Armageddon by KU_Fletch · · Score: 2, Funny

    I choose to base my logic on the movie Armageddon where people can cheerily pull 18 G's on the backside of the moon.... before landing on an asteroid... and blowing it up...

    perhaps i need to find a new base for my logic...

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
  41. Video Torrent by heli0 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    1. Re:Video Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWAHAHAHA.

      You would have to have a death wish to even drop inside it from that height. That tin can is never going to make it into space.

  42. It works ! connection speed 5 - 60 kb sec. by zymano · · Score: 0

    no comment

  43. Is this NEWS worthy ? by zymano · · Score: 0

    their project seems scientificly suspect.

  44. as the old saying goes... by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It could be a very smooth, fast drop.

    As the old saying goes about leaping off a bridge, it's not the trip down that sucks- it's the ending.

    The joke among some pilots, after a hard landing, is the term "unintentional ground contact."

    1. Re:as the old saying goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Commandment I've heard from glider pilots:

      "Keep up thine airspeed lest the ground come up and smite thee!!!"

      OR the old pilots' blessing:

      "May you have as many successful landings as takeoffs"

  45. Armadillo first in space? by dogfart · · Score: 3, Funny

    seems like a lot of trouble to squach an armadillo. Usually speeding cars do just fine.

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  46. Just curious by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm not flamebaiting here, I'm generally curious:

    With John C's cash, don't you think he could afford some bandwidth?

    I mean, seriously, how many times has he been /.'d with this website that they keep hi-res pics and videos on?

    He doesn't have to have a monster monthly bill to suffice, but at the very least you would imagine he could utilize a hoster who could provide the type of bandwidth a /.-hit might cause.

    I love the work, the ideas, the sheer gall of the project, but damn, why is it everytime something interesting is added I have to wait days to see any of it?

    1. Re:Just curious by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      I love the work, the ideas, the sheer gall of the project, but damn, why is it everytime something interesting is added I have to wait days to see any of it?

      hey I love that shit too so I have the site on my list of sites to check for an update. No sense in waiting for /. to post it so you know its there but can't see it because its /.'ed. I saw this post go up a few days ago. Carmack is pretty good about updating on sunday evening/monday morning so surf over there then.

      Who knows... you may even be the first to post it to the /. submission queue...

    2. Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Armadillo Aerospace's media are hosted on id Software's servers. They've deliberately put a bandwidth cap on Armadillo's stuff so as not to screw with id's other game-related server stuff.

      Sorry.

    3. Re:Just curious by TheSync · · Score: 1

      As someone who has served out "Geeks in Space" audio files for Slashdot, I don't buy the whole bandwidth issue of slashdotting.

      I think that most of the "slashdot effect" is due to Web servers themselves failing, generally because of low hard drive bandwidth of dynamic sites. There is also the issue of kernels not configured properly to handle large numbers of open files & processes.

      Slashdotting of a Web site should only create a couple of Mbps of network bandwidth. Now if you pay per GB transfer, that might add up fast, but if you pay for peak BW of a few Mbps, you'll be set.

    4. Re:Just curious by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      My point exactly.

  47. Jerk by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "10Gs" isn't really that informative. In addition to meters per second squared, the key units to report for the landing are meters per second cubed or "jerk". That tells you how much destructive load is imparted by the acceleration. If they published the accelerometer output it should be easy to figure.

    1. Re:Jerk by evilWurst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, m/s^2 *was* given - that's what gees are. One gravity is, what, 9.8m/s^2? So ten of them would be 980m/s^2. The jerk ratings would be nice, though. If they put up a pretty graph of gees vs time, we'd be able to figure it out.

    2. Re:Jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant 98m/s^2.

    3. Re:Jerk by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      9.8m/s^2 is about 1G acceleration. He was probably thinking cgs units.

    4. Re:Jerk by Thowllly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he already said that. But he was talking about meter per second cubed. g=m/s^2 jerk=m/s^3 ...according to him, I wouldn't know...

    5. Re:Jerk by LoveMuscle · · Score: 1

      9.8m/s^2 x 10 is 98m/s^2 not 980...

  48. Just red eye? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
    What a bunch of wheenies.

    I get that all the time playing computer games!

    1. Re:Just red eye? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should use one of those newfangled red eye removal filters ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  49. This is why Doom3 sucks by Junkstyle · · Score: 1

    If teh Carmack stopped playing rocket hobbyist maybe doom3 wouldn't take back seat to HalfLife 2 for best game.

  50. 10Gs? by TheOldFart · · Score: 1

    idbeholdv

  51. I am counting they will all fail. by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Some are too amateurish and do not have enough experience and/or money.

    Others are simply pie-in-the-sky.

    Rutan is trying to do things in the hardest way possible and you know what that means... However there are rumours there could be a possible government money source behind this interest by Rutan. Remains to be seen.

    BTW a suborbital flight is nothing fancy. The problem is getting something in orbit or returning something back to Earth in one piece. Cheaply.

    1. Re:I am counting they will all fail. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      However there are rumours there could be a possible government money source behind this interest by Rutan.

      Maybe, but probably not likely. A more probable source of funding is Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures group, something that is not so far-fetched given the fact Vulcan Ventures has several billion US dollars in investment money to play around with. I wouldn't put it above the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to be one of the financiers, too.

      If my hunch is right, at least Allen and/or Gates are backing someone who DOES have the expertise to build something that can win the X-Prize. After all, some 17 years ago Scaled Composites built the amazing Voyager airplane, the first airplane to fly around the world non-stop unrefuelled. When Scaled built the amazing Proteus airplane that could cruise at over 65,000 feet altitude, I knew it would only be a matter of time before they built a flyable vehicle that could be a serious contender for the X-Prize.

    2. Re:I am counting they will all fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Rutan is trying to do things in the hardest way possible

      How do you figure? The design seems straightforward an elegant.

  52. see this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    attached in flight

    The first ones were definitely doctored, but that doesn't mean they don't have the goods. See picture of the two planes attached and in flight. There are more on the site.

  53. SCALED COMPOSITES will take the prize by Orre · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems that most voters at XPrize believe that the SCALED COMPOSITES, LLC have a better chance to take home the XPrize than Armadillo Aerospace.

    1. Re:SCALED COMPOSITES will take the prize by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      No! Starchaser will win, because we've got pies. Lots of pies, because we're from the North of England.

      While the extra weight of the pies will make lift-off more difficult, these same pies will come into their own when achieving a cushioned landing due to the little-known lard-arse effect.

      This will allow for safe landings without the expense and extra testing of a parachute, by the simple principle of landing on a large, well-padded Northern arse.

      Although the Americans have 'burger' technology, it is far less advanced in the creation of large, cushioned arses than the well established suet pastry technology of the North.

      Even the use of pizzas will not allow the US to leapfrog our specially trained Northern astronauts in this vital space race.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  54. Soyuz = up to 8.1G by hughk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to this report, the Soyuz recent TMA-1 that went off track sustained 8.1G. The crew were unharmed. Normally Soyuz, which makes a hard-landing pulls about 3-4G during descent.

    With shock absorbing crash couches and a reclined position, higher vales should be possible. The issue is failed parachute depolyment. Single parachutes may deploy incorrectly or not at all increasing the G load. Normally a cluster of parachutes are used hence the margin needed for error. Without access to the web site, I can't see how many chutes were being used.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:Soyuz = up to 8.1G by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      With shock absorbing crash couches and a reclined position, higher vales should be possible.


      It was my impression that the Soyuz capsuls had reclined, shock absorbing chairs. I could be wrong though.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:Soyuz = up to 8.1G by hughk · · Score: 1

      Yes quite correct, but I don't know about Carmacks rocket.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    3. Re:Soyuz = up to 8.1G by Eight+01 · · Score: 1

      The last I saw, the crew posisition was still to be determined. The X-Prize requires a three person crew. Their capsule is pretty small and wouldn't allow for the three people to be fully reclined. They'd have to be mostly vertical. This means that during half the trip they'd have to be vertical and upside-down.

  55. Forget the X-Prize by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Carmacks going for the best roller coaster award!

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  56. Obligatory Punctuation snob comment... by nickco3 · · Score: 1

    It should actually be written "10 g's", with 'g' in lower case, as this refers to 10 times the normal acceleration, while "G" the capital letter refers to something entirely different.

    Actually, you shouldn't be using apostrophes at all for plurals. "10g's" refers to something belonging to 10g.

    --
    -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    1. Re:Obligatory Punctuation snob comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually ' is acceptable when indicating plural of acronyms... avoids confusion with something called 'gs'...

  57. Roller Coasters by jeti · · Score: 1

    There are roller coasters where you experience up
    to 7G in a sitting position.

    1. Re:Roller Coasters by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Such as?

      G forces that high cause blackouts, not to mention all sorts of physical injuries possible to (relatively) unrestrained and untrained riders (having your arms above your head isn't such a good idea when your arms suddenly weigh 140 pounds each). I'll have a hard time believing that a roller coaster intentionally does this without proof.

  58. doctored pictures by jeti · · Score: 1

    Have a look at the pictures. The added nozzle
    is bright red, and it's obvious that it was
    added.
    So I think of the pictures as some kind of
    mockup. They were doctored, but Scaled did
    not try to hide it.

    1. Re:doctored pictures by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Not just the nozzle though. The original pic of the two vehicles mated was fake, and the flight shot was very questionable.

  59. It was fine on monday by nietsch · · Score: 1

    when they released the footage.
    Lucky slashdot is a little slow sometimes.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  60. Re:Gs? by Becquerel · · Score: 1

    The thing about G's that is important is the amount of time which you are subjected to it.

    Which is proportional to the energy you need to absorb in your body.

    A modern rollercoaster will peak at around +3.5 or -1 G when averaged over say a 10th of a second, but at higher resolution the noise on that signal might reach +5 and -2 G enough to blackout/redout most people if it were sustained. This of course is in the vertical direction.

    --
    My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
  61. Re:100Gs? by Becquerel · · Score: 1

    At ultra high G's (say 100+) what kills you is the different strengths and densities within your body. And also the difference between you and the environment your in.

    For example the brain gets squashed and bruised when it is accelerated by the solid skull around it, however if you were to put the brain in a solution of a similar consistancy and accelerate that it would be far less damaged.

    --
    My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
  62. Again, depends on the duration. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Fighter pilots in a G-suit can take 9G loads for a few seconds at a time (or maybe longer) without blacking out.

    If the 10g load occurred for only a fraction of a second, it's probably not much worse than going past that sign by the road that says "Dip" a little too fast.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  63. This one by jeti · · Score: 1

    This triple loop roller coaster was
    present on a fair in Germany. It was quite a few years ago.

    The website talks about more than 5g's.
    On the fair, it was advertised as offering up to 7g's.
    I experienced no discomfort at the ride.

  64. more physics: he's unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You can clearly see the naturally unstable aerodynamics of the vehicle, as it starts to tip over almost immediately after release.

    His aerodynamics seem backwards, since drag forces are less when the thin end points backwards. For reference, see airfoils (e.g. airplane wings), GM Sunraycer, and Mercury through Apollo capsules.

  65. Heh by GallicoTheGreat · · Score: 1

    It seems whenever there is an article linked within a gaming community which states that video games cause violence, this happens: "Video games don't cause violence. I'll kill whoever says that!"

  66. Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone give us a mirror? Anything in the *.mil domain is inacessible from Brazil (their DNS servers seem to be firewalled from the rest of the world)

  67. Lots of simulated stuff here... by Brooklynoid · · Score: 1

    ...For the July 5 test, the rocketeers welded in strapping points within the vehicle to hold 600-pounds (273-kilograms) of "passenger" sandbags in the cabin area. Also a set of five Olympic barbell plates were mounted on a peg at the vehicle's end to simulate the weight of the final engines, plumbing, and backup recovery system that will be on the group's full size vehicle... (from space.com)


    Did they also simulate the crushable nose cone with a giant beer can, and the ground with a giant forehead?

  68. Re:Gs? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Good explanation. Yeah, the fellow who suffered red-eye was exposed to high G for at least several seconds, long enough to start rupturing capillaries. Diff between eyes and the rest of the body is that in the eye, the released blood has nowhere else to go, so adds to the cellular debris that floats around in everyone's eyes. I expect he had some retinal damage as well, but that might not be visible without an ophthalmic biomicroscope (which didn't exist at the time).

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  69. Wow, 10 Gs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roughly the equivalent of SITTING DOWN.

    BeDoper.com

  70. Amatuer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another group building a rocket to space is:

    http://www.asa-houston.org