Armadillo Aerospace Claims Level 2 Lunar Lander Prize

Woohooo by arikol · 2009-09-13 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cool.
The flight looked amazingly stable.

GO Armadillo Aerospace. I'm just impressed and pleased that they made it.

Re:Woohooo by bcmm · 2009-09-13 00:27 · Score: 1, Redundant

It does indeed move incredibly smoothly. How does it steady itself? It most certainly looks top-heavy. Are there separate thrusters keeping it from tipping, or does its main engine have thrust-vectoring?

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:Woohooo by bcmm · 2009-09-13 00:35 · Score: 4, Informative

I should have watched the end of the video first: around the three minutes mark you can clearly see the plume moving from side to side while the machine stays almost still relative to the ground.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:Woohooo by Svartalf · 2009-09-13 00:42 · Score: 1

With the way the thrust cone wandered all over the place as they were landing, showing them compensating for things as they brought it down- I'm suspecting a bit of Gyro stabilization coupled with thrust vectoring for directional changes.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Woohooo by JustOK · 2009-09-13 01:12 · Score: 5, Funny

left arrow, left arrow,left arrow,right arrow,up,up,Up,UP,UP!,UP, shit, we made it.

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Woohooo by sakdoctor · 2009-09-13 01:25 · Score: 1, Informative

Actually it was up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A
Re:Woohooo by nstlgc · 2009-09-13 01:41 · Score: 1

Woosh!

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Woohooo by evanbd · 2009-09-13 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

Yep, the main engine is thrust vectoring. Roll control is handled by small cold-gas thrusters that use the same helium supply that pressurizes the main propellant tanks.
Note also that "it most certainly looks top-heavy" is actually an example of the pendulum fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the center of mass is far above, a little above, or below the rocket engine, you need active stabilization on a hovering rocket. (On a rocket flying a vertical trajectory, passive stabilization via fins will suffice to hold it basically straight.)
Re:Woohooo by belthize · 2009-09-13 02:09 · Score: 1

I was impressed by that as well. While I realize it would never have to on the moon, I wonder how well it would deal with a slight breeze. It was making some fairly rapid corrections from what I assume was ground effect buffeting.
Having never seen this one before I was a little taken back at the end when somebody jogged up to it. It was 2-3x bigger than I initially thought.
Re:Woohooo by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-13 02:28 · Score: 1

Would've been easier with just entering "idspispopd". Or is this already version 2?

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:Woohooo by wampus · 2009-09-13 02:55 · Score: 2, Informative

I kind of doubt the thing will be in an oxygen atmosphere on the moon, so there won't be any need to douse it in CO2 after landing.
Re:Woohooo by Narishma · 2009-09-13 03:22 · Score: 2, Informative

The corrections they were making near the end are so that they land as close as possible to the center of the pad, because that counts in determining who gets first place if another team also wins the challenge.

--
Mada mada dane.
Re:Woohooo by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 03:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Lunar Lander was made by Atari, not Konami.
Re:Woohooo by belthize · 2009-09-13 03:34 · Score: 1

I was talking about the rapid corrections in the thrust cone while the lander was stable. There's a pronounced difference in the correction rate around the 3:00 mark of the first video as thermals or reflected exhaust began to affect the lander. Those effects won't exist on the moon but it did cause me to wonder just how large an external force it can deal with before becoming catastrophically unstable.
Re:Woohooo by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 03:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

Informative? Who wanders Slashdot with mod-points these days? Valley Girls?
Re:Woohooo by filekutter · 2009-09-13 04:59 · Score: 1

I'm so happy for AA I am going to fly onto my roof and dance nekkid till I get arrested. OH, and for those who may need a chuckle, I present this forum @ Space Fellowship. Arrogance, conceit, mis-understood genius, and more ! Troll heaven abounds ! http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10511

--
I call computer-illiteracy job security
Re:Woohooo by Nyeerrmm · 2009-09-13 05:04 · Score: 1

Living in Texas and following the tweets about it, I believe it was actually fairly windy yesterday. It was stormy and rainy across the state, and I know that they were much more worried about the rain than the wind.
That engine can thrust and vector a lot, and Dallas/Plano (their lab) and west Oklahoma (a common test site) aren't exactly known for their stellar weather, so they've always had to deal with wind.
Sadly I have no concrete numbers, but 10 mph seems like a pretty reasonable limit based on the environment.
Re:Woohooo by MacroRex · 2009-09-13 05:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's gimbaled, like almost all modern rockets. For more info see here.
Congrats to Armadillo!
Re:Woohooo by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2009-09-13 05:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's gimbaled, like almost all modern rockets. For more info see here.
Which is not all that surprising, since Apollo Lunar Module's descent engine was gimbaled as well.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Woohooo by shentino · 2009-09-13 06:05 · Score: 1

You forgot Start...
Geek card please!
Re:Woohooo by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:07 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link to the pendulum fallacy. I suffered from it until about two minutes ago... I am now enlightened. :) Although I'm not sure I'm happier knowing that the Apollo spacecraft had several hundred kilograms of depleted uranium packed into the nose... :o

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Woohooo by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:16 · Score: 1

While I realize it would never have to on the moon, I wonder how well it would deal with a slight breeze.
Watch the video again, noting how quickly the somewhat threatening clouds are moving overhead in shots where you can see the rocket itself isn't moving. Also, look at the the way the fire at the end, and the exhaust from the fire extinguishers moves. There was more than "a slight breeze" going during the attempt -- there was a pretty decent wind blowing. Nothing extreme, but more than what I'd call "a slight breeze"...

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Woohooo by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:20 · Score: 1

Actually, I just watched the second video, and if you watch the way the dust moves that gets kicked up when they first ignite the engine at takeoff, it's pretty obvious there's a pretty decent wind blowing.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Woohooo by justins · 2009-09-13 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Like OH MY GOD

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Woohooo by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 08:54 · Score: 0

Lunar Lander was around for a long time before Atari. Some of us remember playing it on a main frame and even tinkering with the code a bit.
Re:Woohooo by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 11:40 · Score: 0

"It doesn't matter whether the center of mass is far above, a little above, or below the rocket engine, you need active stabilization on a hovering rocket."
Yes, but you need it FAR LESS if the rocket is mounted at the top...
Re:Woohooo by Exception+Duck · 2009-09-13 14:19 · Score: 1

?Astro Chicken
BACOOCK!!!!

--
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
Re:Woohooo by evanbd · 2009-09-13 14:24 · Score: 1

Nope, wrong. That's *exactly* what the pendulum fallacy article is trying to explain is a fallacy.
Re:Woohooo by Cytotoxic · 2009-09-14 01:34 · Score: 1

Yep, as a kid I played it on the mainframe at my dad's office.... via teletype! I'd input my commands on paper tape, play them over the modem, get the answer back on paper tape, take that over to the line printer and have it print out the result. Back and forth, using piles of paper - all just to find out that I impacted the moon at 4,000 miles per hour. I guess the math was a little complicated for a first grader.... A couple of years later they upgraded to an acoustic-coupled modem on their line printer terminal. It was basically a paper-based computer screen - no more paper tapes! Interacting with the computer in (semi-) real-time via a printer!! Now that was great stuff... I'd go home with stacks of paper printouts of my games. Ah.... good times....
Re:Woohooo by mhajicek · 2009-09-14 07:52 · Score: 1

Great, now they'll find out about our base on Hoth.

Google x-prize? by WindBourne · 2009-09-13 00:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps, just perhaps, this will land on the moon within 2 years. That would be a spectacle to see. I think that if I were Apple or Ellison, I might consider funding it. ANother one might be Paul Allen. Allen has always been on the cutting edge of tech (and unlike his previous partner, not stealing it). Hopefully, he considers talking to carmack and getting this going there. Something like would be likely to spark the kids a bit more.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Google x-prize? by BuR4N · 2009-09-13 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I think the Google Lunar x-prize is pointless. Its now more or less 5 years to it expire, but the full sum is only paid out if someone makes the trip before the end of 2012.

The orginal x-prize took 8 years for someone to win, and that prize had a strong commercial (space tourism) appeal, while the Google prize have not.

--
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Re:Google x-prize? by evanbd · 2009-09-13 03:39 · Score: 1

The Google X-Prize is silly. The hard part of that prize is not the lander. The hard parts are getting your lander there in the first place, and the requisite high-bandwidth communications link back to Earth. Guidance when you can't use GPS is tricky, but easier than those two. (Detail work can be done inertially, but you also need a star tracker or similar baseline reference to work from.)
Any serious contender for the GXP needs to be planning to do a couple test flights if they want a serious hope of winning the prize. Right now there is no way to put a significant payload in Low Earth Orbit on a budget that would make that feasible, let alone on a Lunar transfer orbit. Therefore, if you want to make back any reasonable fraction of your budget with the prize, you *also* have the distinctly nontrivial task of building your own launcher capable of getting to a Lunar transfer orbit.
Now, that said, I fully expect to see Carmack and company build an orbital launcher one day. I expect that, after some development test flights, they'll get it working. But they won't do it on a schedule and budget that makes the GXP look anything other than laughably short-term.
Re:Google x-prize? by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-13 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then maybe the time limit should be extended. And perhaps it should be geared more towards research teams from academia rather than commercial industries.
First off, this is a much loftier goal (far more difficult than suborbital space flight), so naturally it will take longer to achieve. That's to be expected.
Secondly, these type of high-risk, low (immediate) commercial return ventures are inherently unappealing to private commercial industries. Things like space exploration and basic research are long-term investments in the future of humanity. Private industries prefer short-term investments with immediate returns. That's why government agencies like NASA and publicly-funded research organizations like CERN are needed. Otherwise these tasks would never be undertaken.
Lastly, it would probably speed up the process (of returning to the moon) if NASA hadn't decided to take all that publicly-funded space research/technology and auction it off to the highest bidder, basically turning it into private research (to be guarded as trade secrets) and proprietary technologies that are inaccessible to public researchers. I mean, we went from having no space program to landing on the moon in just under 11 years. Returning to the moon 4 decades later in 5 to 7 years really isn't that unreasonable—given that we're able to build on previously acquired knowledge and experience and actually have the motivation as a society to return to the moon.
Re:Google x-prize? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 04:13 · Score: 0

"Now, that said, I fully expect to see Carmack and company build an orbital launcher one day. I expect that, after some development test flights, they'll get it working."
I'll bet it will be the same color as the Shuttle's external tank.
Re:Google x-prize? by khallow · 2009-09-13 05:11 · Score: 1

Perhaps, just perhaps, this will land on the moon within 2 years.

They'd have to figure out how to get it on a rocket and to work on the Moon first. Doesn't sound like a two year project to me even if you have someone with deep pockets backing it.
Re:Google x-prize? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 05:51 · Score: 0

Apple will not fund a thing that doesn't directly improve their bottom line.
Re:Google x-prize? by eyeverve · 2009-09-13 06:53 · Score: 1

I understand your argument about the timeline, but I think what must be considered is our current level of engineering tolerance...decreased with rapidly developing technology. Let's say they designed the first Moon mission to have a 99% success chance. Now, with our technological ability test the hell out of our designs, we won't be satisfied unless the success chance is 99.9999%. The more we know the more it slows us down. Current examples include almost every military aircraft designed in the last 25 years. (I think military aircraft are a better example than civilian because of the high workloads they are involved with similar to what a space vehicle would have.) What do you think?
Re:Google x-prize? by WindBourne · 2009-09-13 14:03 · Score: 1

They'd have to figure out how to get it on a rocket and to work on the Moon first. Doesn't sound like a two year project...
Strange. I think that Musk's goal is to have transportation available to the moon very soon, rather than later. Why is he quietly working on a H2/LOX engine? Not likely for launch. At this time, he needs to have a number of places to send LVs to; Private Space Station, ISS, Lunar orbit, lunar surface, servicing of sats, etc. The only feasible way to do that is via a tug. I will be surprised if shortly after a falcon 9 successful launch, if he does not announce the tug along with a fuel depot. At that point, he will be shooting for the moon.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Google x-prize? by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-14 04:46 · Score: 1

That's very possible. I mean, the more accurate tests are, the more rigorous the safety requirements become. But I think trying to strike a balance between caution and practicality is something we've always had to contend with. The other issue is that space & flight technology today is an order of magnitude more complex than what we went to the moon with in the late 60s. But, at the same time, we should be able to keep up with this growing complexity through technologies like Computer-Aided Design, advanced automation, and better production techniques—things which enabled/produced this complexity in the first place.
I think the biggest factor is still a lack of political will, which is perhaps the fault of our national culture. Would the American people get behind a government effort to get back to the moon at any cost, even though we're not competing with the Russians anymore? There was a huge boost in funding into the sciences and science education in the 1960s. That's not something that we have now, and it doesn't seem to be on the agenda of our national policy makers. If anything, we've taken a few steps back towards the Scopes Monkey Trial days.
It's interesting that you mention military aircraft design, since that seems to be an area of technological development that has really surged forward in the past decade. Look at all the advances in UAV and missile technology, not to mention the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. This hasn't been slowed down by increasingly precise/thorough aircraft testing. That's because the government has poured money into defense, largely with the blessing up the public. Heck, we've created a whole new federal agency, the Homeland Security Agency, just to combat the threat of terrorism.
Re:Google x-prize? by eyeverve · 2009-09-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Thanks for keeping this discussion going, lysergic.acid.

I agree with you on striking a balance with caution and practicality...risk/reward, and also that politics play a large role. The development of technology has far surpassed our rate of political development, which is very frustrating to watch unfold.

The reason I mentioned military aircraft design was because of the development timeline of a modern military aircraft. You mentioned the F-35, so to use that as an example: Much of the F-35 development came out of the 80's and 90's. Particularly, the short takeoff/vertical landing capabilities and conceptual development began as early as 1983. Further development and merging of programs (politically driven) occurred in the early 90's. Various test aircraft flew in the 90's to support the program and then Lockheed's X-35 flew in 2000. The A-variant should show up around 2013, B around 2012, and C around 2015 (hopefully). That's about a 30 year program right there...by no means quick, even if you don't count the first 10 years of development.

UAV development has been quicker, partly because they don't have pilots so if we lose them there are only financial worries. I think Lockheed lost the Polecat in testing not too long ago.

A side note on CAD: It is awesome, but still truly slow. The complex arguments we give it these days still take months to pump out useful information for complex designs on high-end computers. The problem is that they cannot optimize the designs for us...that day will come, though. Then we will be able to give a CAD program parameters and a desired outcome and it will spit out the best solution.
Re:Google x-prize? by khallow · 2009-09-14 16:14 · Score: 1

I think that Musk's goal is to have transportation available to the moon very soon, rather than later.

The problem here is why do you think "very soon" means within two years? They aren't moving fast enough now to do that IMHO. Look at the delays in the Falcon 9 this year (as well as having only launched 1 of 5 or 6 planned launches this year). That's not a sign of someone who wants to be putting things on the Moon in two years.

Re:I'm going to build my own lunar lander by zygotic+mitosis · 2009-09-13 00:24 · Score: 1

and the blackjack. D'oh.

good... so far by CarpetShark · 2009-09-13 00:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

They seemed to be attempting to land on the X, but gave up in the end. Having to put the thing out with a fire extinguisher is a bit worrying too. Otherwise, looks good.

However, the article really shouldn't say "claims prize" when they just didn't fail. The comp isn't even over yet!

Re:good... so far by Svartalf · 2009-09-13 00:37 · Score: 1

Actually... The rules are a bit interesting...
It's the first one to accomplish the ground rules correctly that wins the purse in question. This means there's a second prize shot at Level 1 and the two Level 1 ones were up for grabs. Now only the Level 1 and Level 2 second prizes are free. They did, in fact, win first place, being first at the Level 2 pass of things. It's only not over in the sense of all the purses not being won.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:good... so far by bcmm · 2009-09-13 00:40 · Score: 5, Informative

It may be standard practise to put it out with an extinguisher. I was reading about a recent test of a much larger rocket (I forget the details), and it was suggested that it was doused with CO2 at the end not because it wouldn't burn out on its own, but to preserve the engine in whatever state it was at the end of the burn to allow more information to be extracted from it.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:good... so far by Svartalf · 2009-09-13 00:46 · Score: 1

As for the flames needing a fire extinguisher... Heh... I strongly suspect you'd have needed something along those lines for the primary thrusters on the Moon mission or the Space Shuttle rockets. Just because you cut off fuel flow, doesn't mean you don't have fuel still burning in the combustion chamber- you're just not supplying it any more when you do that. It's not like a jet engine or a car engine in several ways. And, I suspect that they put the fire out because of safety concerns rather than needing to. It'd burned for probably about another minute or so and then ran out of fuel in the chamber.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:good... so far by gclef · 2009-09-13 00:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Wow...so many things wrong in so few sentences.
1) They landed on the X (well, with the X within the space defined by the legs of the craft). In fact, the craft didn't move much horizontally in the last 30 seconds or so...it pretty much hovered over the X for long enough to meet the 180 sec limit.
2) The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself. If I were them, I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
3) The contest is run in stages, and there are prizes for being the first (and second) team to finish each stage, so they did in fact claim a prize for being the first to finish stage 2 of the contest. Yes, there is still a stage 3, and there is a separate prize for being the first to finish stage 3.
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 02:02 · Score: 0

I don't think that 'X' was meant to be there at all.
If you look at the start of the video, you see some concrete fracturing from the heat and then being blown away by the engine exhaust.
The 'X' is a bit of metal rebar that was exposed when the concrete above it shattered.
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 02:04 · Score: 1, Informative

I was reading about a recent test of a much larger rocket (I forget the details), and it was suggested that it was doused with CO2 at the end not because it wouldn't burn out on its own, but to preserve the engine in whatever state it was at the end of the burn to allow more information to be extracted from it.
You may be thinking of the Ares rocket test a few days ago. YouTube has a video that includes CO2 at the end. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixQigIsob3tfbvoJ86LbHGi1MSswD9AKOBOG0
Re:good... so far by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-13 02:35 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
That's a bit of an understatement, considering that the moon has no athmosphere, let alone one out of oxygen. ;)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:good... so far by CarpetShark · 2009-09-13 03:14 · Score: 2, Informative

The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself.
OK, but the simulated lunar surface looks a lot like concrete. Also, they seem to have some inside their engine, as that's where the flames are coming from ;)
Re:good... so far by Narishma · 2009-09-13 03:30 · Score: 4, Informative

That's not correct. First, they already won Level 1 last year, so there's only 2nd place of Level 1 available for grabs. This year the rules were changed a bit so that each team can try for the challenge at their home bases, and only Armadillo has so far. There are 2 other competitors that have yet to fly. If they succeed at the Level 2 then they will determine who gets first place by looking at who landed the closest to the center of the pad. So even though Armadillo succeeded, the other teams can still do better in theory and claim first place.

--
Mada mada dane.
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 03:32 · Score: 0

Why would it matter that a fire extinguisher is necessary during testing? They are testing within an atmosphere that has oxygen...isn't that what is allowing the continuous burn after shutdown? On the moon I would think there would be far less residual burning due to lack of atmosphere.
Re:good... so far by Jared555 · 2009-09-13 03:57 · Score: 1

Depending on the composition of a material it can burn in space but I doubt a moon/planet that has a massive quantity of oxidizer and fuel sources on the surface would stay that way very long. (All it would take would be heat generated by an impact, etc. to potentially set it off)
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 04:11 · Score: 0

Having to put the thing out with a fire extinguisher is a bit worrying too.
I don't see this being a problem on the moon.
Re:good... so far by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-13 04:16 · Score: 1

First off, the starting pad and the lunar pad are 2 different locations. The first is a normal flat concrete launch pad. The second is supposed to be a "simulated" lunar surface with rocks and craters. And if you look from the top-down view (around 2:39 in the first video), you can clearly see the "X"—that don't look like no rebar I ever seen. In fact, it looks suspiciously like the highly stylized, and quite distinct, "X" in the X-Prize logo.
Re:good... so far by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-13 04:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Are you sure the flames were from the simulated lunar surface? It seemed to be coming out of the bottom of the rocket booster and then shooting towards the ground (3:15 in the first video). I think someone mentioned this was done intentionally to freeze the engine's state for further data collection purposes.
Though it does look like the safety personnel sprays the extinguisher at both the lunar pad and the booster.
Re:good... so far by CarpetShark · 2009-09-13 04:23 · Score: 1

It's true; I hadn't thought of whether it was a problem on the moon. It just jumped out at me, as an inelegance in the design, which usually suggests that the whole thing could be done better. I mean, seriously... flames from the engine, lapping around the rest of the craft? It might still work, but it's far from pretty.
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 05:44 · Score: 0

"Pretty" is the last thing in consideration with spacecraft.
They aren`t making this rocket stuff to please your eye lol.
Re:good... so far by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:28 · Score: 1

Having to put the thing out with a fire extinguisher is a bit worrying too.
You got the part about this being designed for landing on the Moon, right? Perhaps you're unaware, but there's no atmosphere there.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:good... so far by bcmm · 2009-09-13 07:07 · Score: 1

That's the one, thanks.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:good... so far by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 08:28 · Score: 0

Thank you, Capt'n Obvious.
Re:good... so far by CarpetShark · 2009-09-13 09:16 · Score: 1

No, but as I said, I was referring to elegance of design. In that context, pretty is a bit different from "pleasing to the eye".
Re:good... so far by syousef · 2009-09-13 16:29 · Score: 1

2) The flames were from the simulated lunar surface that it lit on fire, not the craft itself. If I were them, I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
As there's no air on the moon, I'd call that the understatement of the century. Concern over a goblin eating the spacecraft or it disappearing into quantum nothingness might be better founded.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

Re:I'm going to build my own lunar lander by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 00:33 · Score: 0

Well, unless you're well off, you'll need the blackjack to pay for the hookers...

Not impressed by SmallFurryCreature · 2009-09-13 00:43 · Score: 3, Funny

If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Not impressed by NoYob · 2009-09-13 01:27 · Score: 3, Funny

If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!
I had a great set for my faked Moon landing. It looked perfect as the rocket came down on its parachute! For some reason folks said it didn't look like a real Moon landing - go figure!

--
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Re:Not impressed by kwerle · 2009-09-13 05:32 · Score: 1

If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!
How would anyone know?
Re:Not impressed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2009-09-13 06:03 · Score: 2, Funny

I had a great set for my faked Moon landing. It looked perfect as the rocket came down on its parachute! For some reason folks said it didn't look like a real Moon landing - go figure!
You silly, the parachute was too big! Everything is lighter on Moon, you need a smaller parachute.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Not impressed by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:30 · Score: 1

How would anyone know?
From the previous movie, of course. You need to maintain continuity... unless this is supposed to be a "reboot"...

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by petes_PoV · 2009-09-13 01:25 · Score: 1

on a rainy day at Caddo Mills, Texas ...

Surely that alone invalidates a simulated moon landing? (as would any cross winds)

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by drinkypoo · 2009-09-13 01:28 · Score: 1

Cross winds would surely be vastly more significant, but rain would be pretty much irrelevant when you consider the mass of the craft and the amount of thrust involved.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by itsdapead · 2009-09-13 01:41 · Score: 1

Surely that alone invalidates a simulated moon landing? (as would any cross winds)
That and the 6x stronger gravity...
I'd think doing the same thing on the Moon would be a lot easier - getting it there, and ensuring it works 100% of the time without the intervention of a man with a screwdriver... not so much.

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 02:26 · Score: 1, Informative

This is why this contest was for 3 minutes of hovering - with moon gravity, it translates to about 18 minutes of hovering, which is enough energy to softly land on or take of from the moon.
There are many things in this challenge that do not try to fully simulate the moon - they are not required to operate in heat or cold of the moon, hard vacuum, their vehicle even uses GPS for navigation.
The challenge simulates the most important part of lunar lander - vertical takeoff and landing, and prolonged hovering time.
Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by Jared555 · 2009-09-13 04:01 · Score: 1

If manned/unmanned missions to the moon become more common there is always the possibility of a limited GPS system being put in place. Might make navigating unmanned missions easier as well as locating the lander after a longer trip. (Although the later could be taken care of by a tracking beacon as long as line of sight doesn't become a significant issue)
Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by Svartalf · 2009-09-13 04:35 · Score: 1

Actually, the winds are minimal today in this area. I wouldn't know whether they're up over in Caddo Mills, but it's been a slow, steady, soaking rain for the last two days in the area with no appreciable winds (Caddo Mills is roughly 20 or so minutes to the North and East of Dallas along I-30 in-between Rockwall and Greenville.).
Low or no winds would be close enough to the conditions for a test for the purposes of the prizes.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Rainy day ..... simulated moon landing? by Svartalf · 2009-09-13 04:37 · Score: 1

Definitely. And it did it quite well, actually. What makes it more impressive is the nature of the design- they're not using the same class of tech as NASA and other space agencies have used in the past. It's capable of the same, but it's cheaper and intrinsically more robust- dual systems, etc.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

congratulations by WillRobinson · 2009-09-13 01:29 · Score: 1

Nice thrust vectoring! Congratulations to all at Armadillo Aerospace!

My first thought was it was nice to see some money we spent years ago on Doom and the games built from that engine being put to good use.

I wish I had the math programming skills the he so fluidly can poor out. Truly impressive.

Second thought was John played to much lunar lander (ascii version) back in the day too. (chuckle)

Re:congratulations by cyberthanasis12 · 2009-09-13 04:14 · Score: 1

Congrats to Carmack and Diamandis. We need more people like you.

Good Jorb! by Froze · 2009-09-13 01:38 · Score: 1

This is really good nerd news. Does anyone know of a more detailed account of the event? I used to follow their weekly news updates on all their internal progress and that was really enjoyable. However, it seems that lately they quit posting almost entirely, the last update was for May (http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home). I really wish there other technologically oriented blogs that detail development and results the way they do (did?).

--
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.

Re:Good Jorb! by Maddog+Batty · 2009-09-13 02:00 · Score: 1

Try This:
http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/forum-23.html

--
wot no sig

Actually it was by MRe_nl · 2009-09-13 01:56 · Score: 3, Funny

set cg_bobroll "0"

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

twitter? by witherstaff · 2009-09-13 02:48 · Score: 1

posted videos and images using social networking tools such as Twitter

I didn't know you could fit videos or pictures in 140 characters. Did they use ascii art?

Re:twitter? by Narishma · 2009-09-13 03:36 · Score: 1

But you can fit links to pictures and youtube videos in 140 characters.

--
Mada mada dane.
Re:twitter? by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:36 · Score: 1

I didn't know you could fit videos or pictures in 140 characters. Did they use ascii art?
It's a brand new technology called a "hyperlink".
Back away from the gopher...

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

budget by bmorency · 2009-09-13 03:08 · Score: 1

Does anyone know how much money is needed to do a project like this? Is the $1 million more than enough to cover the cost?

Re:budget by QuantumG · 2009-09-13 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you've got a "build a little, sell a little" mindset like John Carmack, sure. He's actually said he hasn't spent more than $1 million on Armadillo.. and last year he let slip that the group is actually profitable already. With the prize money they intend to put on a few more people fulltime.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Girlfriend's reaction by YourExperiment · 2009-09-13 03:11 · Score: 4, Funny

My girlfriend* just walked in the room and saw me watching the video of the successful flight. All she said was "No, you can't have one."

To be fair, she was joking... I think.

* Don't even think about it.

Re:Girlfriend's reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 07:46 · Score: 0

Why is this funny? Whats the joke?
Re:Girlfriend's reaction by whatajoke · 2009-09-13 08:12 · Score: 1

My girlfriend* just walked in the room and saw me watching the video of the successful flight. All she said was "No, you can't have one." To be fair, she was joking... I think. * Don't even think about it.
Dude, you really think the nickname YourExperiment and the words My girlfriend are going to stop people from thinking what they are thinking?
Re:Girlfriend's reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 09:30 · Score: 0

Grasping the nettle: you meant your mother, right?
Re:Girlfriend's reaction by powerlord · 2009-09-14 03:18 · Score: 1

My wife's reaction was, "No you can't go. You said you wouldn't leave me to go into space."
My response was, "No, I said I wouldn't go without you. You can come too." :D

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.

It's not over yet; They didn't actually win by chroma · 2009-09-13 03:29 · Score: 2, Informative

The summary is misleading. They didn't actually win the $1 million yet. Masten Space and Unreasonable Rocket are both going to have a crack at the prize and have until October 31 to best Armadillo's performance.

--

Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw

Re:It's not over yet; They didn't actually win by Jared555 · 2009-09-13 04:04 · Score: 1

So is the title. More appropriate would have been "Moved Into First Place for" instead of "Claims" but that doesn't fit on the screen as well.
Re:It's not over yet; They didn't actually win by smoker2 · 2009-09-13 05:14 · Score: 1

Claim is not the same as takes. Several people can claim first prize, but only one can take it. I can claim I didn't go to the pub last night, does that make it true ?

Other flying object by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 03:50 · Score: 0

There is another flying object in the second video at 2:16 - 2:20. I'm not saying it's a UFO, but I wonder what it is.

Re:Other flying object by osu-neko · 2009-09-13 06:42 · Score: 1

There is another flying object in the second video at 2:16 - 2:20. I'm not saying it's a UFO, but I wonder what it is.
Damn, good catch -- I had to watch several times to see it. Based on size (incredibly small) and relative speed (quite quick, indicating it's likely much closer to the camera than the rocket, further indicating small size to appear so small while that close), I'm gonna go with "insect".

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Erm by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 04:15 · Score: 0

Since when did the lunar surface have crates and boulders?

Re:Erm by mobets · 2009-09-13 05:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe the setup crew got confused when they saw Carmack and set up a simulated Mars surface instead.

--

It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese

too much military slop over by zogger · 2009-09-13 04:27 · Score: 1

Advanced rocket designs and navigation, etc just have too much military dual use potential to them to just wing it out public domain..unfortunately. Otherwise I agree with you, proly quite a bit of wheel reinventing going on now that really doesn't have to be. I think *most* government funded research should be open sourced, especially anything pertaining to medicine, but not that.

Market It As a Toy! by sanman2 · 2009-09-13 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Superb work from the minds of Armadillo!

Maybe they need to find a way to turn something like into a commercializable product, to reap more rewards from their fine work.

I wonder if there's some kind of dual-use alternative market for something like this? How about making a small miniaturized version that could be marketed as a toy for adult geeks? (aka "overgrown kids")

Cmon - wouldn't you like to have your own miniature thrust-vectored hovering lander thingie floating around your office?

Carmack's geek credentials are solid enough to be a brand. He could make his own toy company to market toy versions of any cool space tech he develops.

Re:Market It As a Toy! by sbierwagen · 2009-09-13 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

You might be able to scale it down and have it run for more than three seconds and without using lawsuit-inspiringly high tank pressures, I don't know, I'm not a rocket scientist.

But something that would be difficult to scale is the electronics. I don't know what precisely Armadillo is using right now, but I know it includes a Crossbow IMU. The control system for a rocket needs high quality gyros, and while the Crossbow is cheap by the rarefied standards of military avionics, it's still a good fifty grand, and is definitely not something that can be replaced by a wiimote accelerometer.
Re:Market It As a Toy! by sanman2 · 2009-09-14 16:03 · Score: 1

Maybe things like the Crossbow IMU are what electronics and MEMS companies could develop a cheaper substitute for, if a toy market were to take off around little mini space-toy gadgets. Who knows what other appliances they could improve, from jittery camcorders to gesture-based cellphones.

There is no Moon! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-13 04:45 · Score: 0

If they want a shot at faking another moonlanding they really need to hire a better set designer, that didn't look anything like the moon!

NO, YOU ARE WRONG! This was not a landing on Moon, but on Mars! Didn't you realize those Martians rushing up with their fire extinguishers?

Power It With a Bic Lighter! by sanman2 · 2009-09-13 04:54 · Score: 1

You could power the toy version with lighter fluid. Some kind of chip would control the thrust vectoring, and some tiny microturbine would act as the turbopump for the rocket motor.

Hey, why not? It would be cooler than these R/C micro-helicopters

A really cool design would allow you to just plug in an ordinary Bic lighter into it as a ready-made fuel tank.

A fancy version could even have a small camera onboard, and maybe send a video feed back to your laptop via bluetooth. There are R/C helicopters that have tiny cameras on them. You could control and steer the thing from your laptop too.

I bet it could be done - and I bet plenty of people would buy it, too.

Re:Power It With a Bic Lighter! by Cold+hard+reality · 2009-09-13 05:40 · Score: 1

You forgot the tiny liquid oxygen tank.
Re:Power It With a Bic Lighter! by bcmm · 2009-09-13 06:58 · Score: 1

You'd have to make it big enough to operate outdoors without being blown away. Rockets inside sounds like a lawsuit.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:Power It With a Bic Lighter! by sanman2 · 2009-09-13 12:37 · Score: 1

meh, make it a tiny air-breathing jet engine instead of a rocket motor, then
but the rest of the principles and operation would still be the same

Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by EWAdams · 2009-09-13 05:23 · Score: 1

Like, with slide rules?

Next there'll be a prize to build some kind of circuit that allows us to add binary numbers together. After that we can try to find a way to use steam to pump water out of mines.

Sheesh. At least they might have tried it with Martian conditions instead of lunar ones.

--
I piss off bigots.

Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by QuantumG · 2009-09-13 09:42 · Score: 1

A computer controlled VTVL rocket vehicle built by a bunch of amateurs? No, we didn't see that.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by EWAdams · 2009-09-13 11:39 · Score: 1

A computer controlled VTVL rocket vehicle built by a bunch of amateurs? No, we didn't see that.
Is that what this prize is about? Rewarding people for being amateurs, rather than advances in actual technology?

The LM landed and it took off again, vertically. It was controlled by hand, but computer control is hardly, ahem, rocket science nowadays.

I don't see the point. Why not give prizes for major advances regardless of who achieves them, rather than duplicating 40-year-old achievements with the benefit of hindsight and modern technology?

--
I piss off bigots.
Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by QuantumG · 2009-09-13 11:52 · Score: 1

Here's the justification for it: http://www.xprize.org/blogs/wpomerantz/ng-llc-rules-explained
The thing you should know about NASA though is that they don't actually do shit for rational reasons - they just decide to do stuff then they justify it. The fact is, there are very few people doing rocket engine development in the US. Its such a small community that you can have conferences run by students and all the big names in the field will show up. NASA benefits by encouraging commercial interests to do rocket development and a competition is the most cost effective way to do that.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by DynaSoar · 2009-09-13 13:32 · Score: 1

Like, with slide rules?
And a few billion dollars? And thousands of engineers, and hundreds of thousands of people at various jobs of all kinds? And a greater proportion of existing computer power (such as it was at the time, but it wasn't slide rules either) devoted to a single endeavor than has ever occurred since?
Anyway, "we" who? Is that you Dr. von Braun?

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by jcupitt65 · 2009-09-13 22:21 · Score: 1

You're right that these projects are not doing much technically that's not been done previously by government programmes. Their innovation is that they are dramatically cheaper and that someone other than NASA is taking the risk and making the investment.
(repost of http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=999941&cid=25422361)
Re:Um... didn't we do this 40 years ago? by mattr · 2009-09-14 02:13 · Score: 1

My impression is that these prizes are created for specific milestones that delineate an evolutionary path for private, entrepreneurial, kickass space industry. The first steps are simple, and they get harder. They reward excellence for people competing in that space, the best get fantastic press and some (probably not all I would expect) of their investment back. The space elevator competition, the AI automobile competition, etc. all proceed a pace at a time. With respect to your question, IANARS but the idea of skunkworks space developers applying the most modern technologies to achieve aerospace development targets in what sounds like Internet time is new. Also X-Prizes create a competitive community that is a visible target for investors, engineers, and even government planners. Where is the civil space program? THERE!

John Carmack is my autodidactical hero by Money+for+Nothin' · 2009-09-13 05:24 · Score: 1

Not bad for a guy with no college degree!

(Disclaimer: I do have a BSCS. But there is no way I could accomplish the things Carmack has. By the time he was my age, Carmack was working on Quake 3. *sigh*)

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?

Re:John Carmack is my autodidactical hero by 4D6963 · 2009-09-13 06:55 · Score: 1

So, go ahead and accomplish something? Surely there must be something that you're good at that overlaps with something you'd find desirable to achieve?

--
You just got troll'd!

not launch pad on fire Re:good... so far by WolfWithoutAClause · 2009-09-13 05:42 · Score: 1

The launch pad is a form of concrete, and is not flammable.

The flames are coming from inside the engine, the engine uses the fuel (alcohol) to flow through cooling channels to cool the injectors in the combustion chamber.

When the main valves shut off, there's still some fuel remaining in the cooling channels and this tends to vapourise and burn off even after shutoff- but burning unevenly with the air, rather than the LOX. That's why it's a much cooler reddish flame rather than the much hotter blue flame exhaust in-flight.

--

-WolfWithoutAClause

"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

Control system by TerranFury · 2009-09-13 05:59 · Score: 1

Is there any information out there on the stabilizing controllers used by Armadillo to achieve this? Does anyone know what methodology they used? Old-fashioned PID (or really lag-lead) with hand tuning? LQR on a linearized model? Feedback linearization? There are some references to "gains" in passing on the Armadillo website which makes me assume that there's a linear controller somewhere in there under the hood.... Anybody know?

Re:Control system by evanbd · 2009-09-13 06:37 · Score: 1

It's all software, but I believe it's a PID controller at heart. I know they do things that aren't strictly PID, like dead bands in the roll control, but I don't think it's terribly complicated. If you read through their updates they have a fair bit of information, in varying levels of detail.
I know they've moved more and more to having broader control loops: instead of one loop that sets a thrust level in order to maintain position, and another that tweaks the throttle to hit the target thrust, they just wrap it into one loop that moves the throttle valve in order to maintain altitude.
Re:Control system by TerranFury · 2009-09-14 02:19 · Score: 1

I'd skimmed that updates page but hadn't found much. I took another look and found a bit more: On this page, for instance, they mention using a simple PD controller for their throttle. That's not too surprising; it's all you need. What I'm more interested in though, and still haven't found, is how they control orientation -- if they're controlling Euler angles individually or doing something fancier on the Lie group of rotations...
Re:Control system by evanbd · 2009-09-14 04:03 · Score: 1

That, I don't know. If you're really curious, though, I suggest asking Carmack, either directly or on the amateur rocketry mailing list. He's quite open about answering technical questions.

More X-Prizes by sanman2 · 2009-09-13 13:30 · Score: 1

Beyond the lunar lander prize, they should have another X-Prize for re-entry technologies, which could be tested using sounding rockets.

I'm mentioning this in the wake of NASA's awesome low-cost Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment, which looks to have been a resounding success. It too was done using just a sounding rocket.

Another example of a low-cost experiment was Australia's recent HyShot test for a hypersonic scramjet engine, which was also done using a sounding rocket. Such technologies are much more difficult to master than rockets are, but perhaps the Carmacks of the world can find more challenge in this.

So technologies that can be tested/proven using sounding rockets would be the kinds of things that would be good for prize-based competitions, since their cost would be at a level where privately-funded teams might be able to manage it. This would keep the playing field open to a wider number of competitors.

Your point being? It's been DONE. Move on. by EWAdams · 2009-09-13 23:02 · Score: 1

Little kids can now build telescopes better than Galileo made and at far less cost using off-the-shelf components. So what? Do we hand them big prizes for it?

The "we" is "we, the human race."

--
I piss off bigots.

John Carmack? by Provocateur · 2009-09-13 23:35 · Score: 1

So I hereby bestow upon him the title

Official Rocket Launcher!

The One. The Only.

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.

Re:I'm going to build my own lunar lander by CubicleView · 2009-09-14 00:24 · Score: 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756891/quotes
Not quoted verbatim but somewhat on topic I'd say.

wow and its bigger than i thought by yodleboy · 2009-09-14 02:37 · Score: 1

Watched flight 2 first, the thing looks like a little model until you see the guy run up with a fire extinguisher at the end. Nice work.

More Prizes! by Baldrson · 2009-09-14 04:26 · Score: 1

This is just one more demonstration of the power of prizes for objective criteria -- as distinguished from "grand challenges" that are little more than RFQs.

--
Seastead this.

Slashdot Mirror

Armadillo Aerospace Claims Level 2 Lunar Lander Prize

134 comments