Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Armadillo Aerospace Resurrected On Kickstarter By the Team Members

Posted by Soulskill on from the reaching-for-the-sky dept.

savuporo writes: Team members from John Carmack's defunct suborbital rocket company, Armadillo Aerospace, have re-launched the suborbital rocket project now as Exos Aerospace through a Kickstarter campaign. While original Armadillo efforts stopped just shy of actually getting to space, the team intends to pick up where they left off, rebuild and make it into a sustainable suborbital payload business. Carmack, while not involved, says their core is "arguably the most competent in suborbital alt-space."

There are multiple other small launcher startups springing up again across the globe — Rocket Labs recently unveiled their new engines, Firefly is making progress, and Lin Industrial also announced their rocket recently.

29 comments

  1. 16 current supporters as I looked by MouseR · · Score: 1

    probably means their 80s sound track is not purveying the proper image of modernness and cutting edge they require.

    1. Re:16 current supporters as I looked by franzrogar · · Score: 0

      And for the *small info beneath*, they're Americans, 'cause they only ship to US.

      So, if you're out and want to have anything, have to pay the 10,000 bill... perfect.

    2. Re:16 current supporters as I looked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably means their 80s sound track is not purveying the proper image of modernness and cutting edge they require.

      That is pretty funny considering that the Kung Fury kickstarter just made their 80s sound track purvey an image of modernness and cutting edge.
      Heck, if you can make the Hoff seem to be down with the kids then you can do anything.

  2. Why sub-orbital? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    What's the point in having sub-orbital rocket capability? I'm missing something.

    It's great for tests and picking up additional biomes in KSP, and it's how we do ICBMs, but what's the commercial demand?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    1. Re:Why sub-orbital? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the point in having sub-orbital rocket capability? I'm missing something.

      Nope, you aren't missing anything. There are a few niche applications for sub-orbital launches, but not enough to sustain a business, which is why they are looking for spare change on Kickstarter. Getting to space is easy. Staying in space is hard. Randall Monroe explains it in this "What If".

    2. Re:Why sub-orbital? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      but what's the commercial demand?

      Ballistic poop-o-grams. :-P

      Other than that, I find myself asking the same question, because I can't think of many applications in which you need to lob something from point a to point b.

      I mean, "sub-orbital" is basically punkin' chunkin', isn't it?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Why sub-orbital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting to space is easy

      Yeah, I know right... I mean, nothing to it.
      Now excuse me, got to get to the Space Port before my shuttle back to the ol' Lunar Colony takes off.

    4. Re:Why sub-orbital? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Now excuse me, got to get to the Space Port before my shuttle back to the ol' Lunar Colony takes off.

      The moon orbits the earth. So you aren't going to get there with a sub-orbital launch.

      Just getting to space is orders of magnitude easier than getting to orbit. It was first done in the early 1940s, and even hobbyists* can do it today.

      *For very large values of "hobby".

    5. Re:Why sub-orbital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFK (kickstarter):

      "Three minutes or more of zero-g and the vacuum of space await your creativity and lifelong desire to send something to that final frontier. We're talking over 60 miles up, not near-space, but past the Von Karmen line to true-space. "

      Three minutes of zero-g is tons of time for a lot of experiments, and about 40 times what you can get in a drop tube.

    6. Re:Why sub-orbital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Reaching orbital speed takes much more fuel than reaching orbital height." Getting a ship up to 8 km/s ... -- Randall Munro

      Yeah, and once we have the vacuum tube trains -- with the vacuum tunnels pointed in the right direction, and a suitable pop-top opening on, say, the top of Mount Washington or such -- then we can just put the payloads on the tracks and bring them up to full speed without carrying all that staging fuel up to throw away.

      Admittedly the transition from vacuum train tunnel to hitting atmosphere at 8 km/s then firing the last stage booster to get out of the atmosphere going basically sideways will be a little rugged.

    7. Re:Why sub-orbital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting to space isn't easy. SpaceShipOne's win of the x-prize was a big deal, and that was only a few years ago. Sure, getting to orbit may be harder than getting to space, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

      PS is it just me or is the "space is hard" line getting pretty tired?

  3. Ten seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far they've raised enough money for ten seconds of a fireworks show this July 4th.

    1. Re:Ten seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The supporters should receive a complimentary double barreled shotgun modeled after the one used to hunt red, floating monsters at the orbit.

  4. Great news by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    Hopefully no more gyro issues.

  5. Nice pairing by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    First we had "Company gets Kickstarted, then fails."

    Now we have "Company fails, then (attempts to) get Kickstarted."

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Nice pairing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I applaud the innovation going on in private sector space travel. And goodness knows I like a good Underdog Makes Good story.

      However we have to face facts here. Armadillo Aerospace, along with Blue Origin, hasn't really achieved much. They are joining a list that includes RotoDyne Systems (I think that was the name) who tried to do a lot on a shoestring budget and fell short. John Carmack hyping up the Armadillo team sounds more than a little hollow in this context.

      Who is consistently impressing, hitting their marks, and creating confidence in their entire operation? SpaceX, that's who. They set expectations appropriately, then meet or exceed those expectations. They set the bar higher with every achievement, and the progress they make is clear and rapid. Talking about the SpaceX achievements of 6 months or a year ago sounds quaint and disconnected, because SpaceX has done a lot subsequent to that.

      Armadillo? Not so much. It may be that they are simply under-resourced, but the outcome is more important than how they got there.

  6. A rich guy space company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, a rich guy space company without the rich guy. You frustrated rocket scientists would be better off with LDRS like the rest of us.

  7. Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by honestimmigrant · · Score: 1

    If I donate money to a company, I don't see why I get an equity stake in the company - just like any other big venture capitalist should.

    For example, if I donated some money to Exos Aereospace above and they developed a revolutionary rocket that makes the founders billions, why can't the people that donated have a slice of the pie?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind donating money to good causes. I would love to see mankind have better access to space, and I wouldn't mind donating money to a non-profit to further the cause --- but this isn't a non-profit!

    1. Re:Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by sribe · · Score: 2

      For example, if I donated some money to Exos Aereospace above and they developed a revolutionary rocket that makes the founders billions, why can't the people that donated have a slice of the pie?

      SEC regulations. There's a high bar, in terms of regulations and documentation, for selling equity to the general public.

      The SEC is actively working on reducing the burden precisely to allow small investments via crowdfunding, but I haven't followed their progress.

    2. Re:Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The SEC is actively working on reducing the burden precisely to allow small investments via crowdfunding, but I haven't followed their progress.

      Yeah, I haven't heard anything in the last year or two about the crowdfunding regulation they were supposedly developing. Its probably getting just too complex because they are trying to be overprotective.

    3. Re:Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look at the hue and cry of failed kickstarters... I think it would be even worse for an equity position. The bitching about a $65 product is insane. I can't imagine what it would look like over a $100 micro-stake or a $10k stake...

    4. Re:Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SEC is actively working on reducing the burden precisely to allow small investments via crowdfunding, but I haven't followed their progress.

      I actually did attempt to follow their progress for a while, but eventually I had to give up. My impression is that they're actively working on NOT reducing that burden, because as an organization they're on record as being pretty much against the whole idea, and are therefore dragging their collective feet.

      I mean, on the one hand, they're not exactly wrong: If they loosen the restrictions, a lot of grandmothers are definitely going to lose a lot of nest eggs to a lot of shysters. On the other hand, well, I mean, it's their job to implement the law, no matter how they feel about it.

    5. Re:Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There are times when it seems like I'm prepurchasing to get a discount. For cases where they're not inventing with my money, that seems reasonable. Or for artists, who are creating something non-commercial, etc.

      But when I'm sponsoring engineering, I tend to agree with you.

      I suppose it comes down to if I'm assuming risk of completion, or not.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  8. Ambitions far too small by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The maximum donation is just $10k? They should have a $100k plus "I get to go into orbit" tier.

    In fact if they were smart they would be talking about developing a really nice sub-orbital vehicle expressly for the purpose of tourism - huge viewing ports (with the new transparent aluminum of course!), dedicated to people really being able to see the globe.

    Otherwise why should I think these guys can compete against SpaceX?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Ambitions far too small by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >$100k plus "I get to go into orbit" tier.

      What part of sub-orbital are you not getting? Getting a payload out of the atmosphere only requires about 5% of the energy required to get it into orbit at the same altitude (and that's just the required energy delta, before even considering the rocketry inefficiencies) - orbital launches are in a completely different league. These guys aren't competing against SpaceX - that would be like having your souped-up moped "compete" in a Formula 1 auto race. Suborbital launches are useful for throwing bombs at your enemies, doing brief microgravity experiments that still require at least a couple minutes and thus can't be done on a "vomit comet" parabolic flight, and... umm... tourism maybe? What would you be willing to pay for a few minutes of dark sky and free-fall?

      If it could be done cheaply enough there might be a market as high-speed intercontinental transport, but that's a LONG way away. In the meantime it's an extremely niche market.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  9. Meant sub-orbital. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I actually meant sub-orbital, typo. I referred to that later but it was absolutely confusing. Sorry about that.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Good luck... by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    How exactly is a $125 k kickstarter supposed to help them get into space? They need millions of $$$ in funding -- which they call "Phase 2 (Funding)" on their kickstarter page. If they have a real shot at the funding they need, then a kickstarter is unnecessary. If they don't have a shot at the funding they need, then a kickstarter is worthless. I hate to be a hater, but I think it's the latter. The business plan sounds like:

    1) $125 k Kickstarter
    2) ???
    3) Space Profit!

    I wish them luck...

  11. Why? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    The world needs another sounding rocket for what purpose exactly?

    If there was any money in this, Bristol Aerospace would be a household name.

    Exactly.