X Prize and John Carmack 340
Anonymous Coward writes "ABC News is running a story ostensibly about the X Prize but in reality they only talk about John Carmack and his teams efforts to win the prize (or at least compete). Quote: 'Some people have commented that I am trying very hard to make aerospace like software, and that's the truth," he says. "If we looked at what we do in software, if we could only compile and test our program once a year, we'd never get anything done. But that's the mode of aerospace.' "
Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:2, Interesting)
I just hope that they value a quality assurance process more then the typical software engineer. In a game like this you would not be able to release version 2.0.
--
Go calculate something [webcalc.net]
Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Dual use... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not develop and test their spaceship mostly via computer simluation. That's Carmack's strong suit anyway. Besides, I'd love to get my hands on that sort of simulator. Though I'd probably need a beowulf cluster...
Re:Cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevertheless, I wonder who would be willing to strap themselves into a space vehicle that cost 'only' $1 million to develop.
It's not an entirely stupid process (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the capabilities of modern IT, it makes much more sense to use software as the core of the system, in the same was as software is the core of a device like the Segway, or the stair-climbing robot, or the telescopes that consist of a thousand small mirrors, not one large one.
Rocket science has not changed significantly since 1950, and needs a rethink. I believe this project is a solid approach that has good chances of succeeding, and if so, will redefine the way we conceive of this kind of engineering project in the future.
WSMR & John's approach (Score:5, Interesting)
The crew hopes to launch the real deal at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
This, I have known for a while: I have a buddy that works in WSMR's flight safety group. I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping that I'll get to watch. *crossed fingers*
However, John's attitude of build a little, test a little isn't just a software attitude. It's the old Xplanes or NACA (pre NASA) attitude towards aeronautics.
For those of you that still use usenet, go check out the sci.space.* heirarchy. You'll find that John's a contributor there, but he's empathetically not the first to espouse such views. However, I know of none that have compared it to software development like he did in this interview.
Re:hm (Score:5, Interesting)
But all jokes aside, this is what's going to push manking further. People like John Carmack who are smart, driven, and can afford to play in aerospace. Maybe Armadillo won't be the company that makes space travel cheap or even possible for the average successful joe shmoe, but somebody like him will. Given the tantrums thrown by nasa when somebody wants to go up to space who's not an "astronaut" even on another country's rockets, it's sure as hell not going to come from them, even in competition with the [russians|chinese|indians].
Negative dorks (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:A little more important than a contest (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, you can be sure people are going to die because of this. People died trying to get to Asia, cross the Atlantic, get to the north pole, discover redioactivity, (nearly died) to discover electricity, and create trains, automobiles and airplanes. Why do you think this advance will cost less than most of the others? That's the nature of the game. Now as far as general destruction, that's easy, too. Launch over deserted land or over water, and you'll minimize the risk to uninvolved individuals.
Ultimately, advancement requires risk. Large, established organizations are adverse to risk, leaving two options: slowed (or stalled) innovation, or introduction of players willing to take risks. I personally would like to see something more advanced than the space shuttle, and at the rate NASA is going, I'll be waiting another decade or three for them to do that.
Software Design *most definitely* != Rocket Design (Score:3, Interesting)
I fucking shudder to think of the average software developer deciding that his skills can carry over into engineering. Like the parent said, QA in the software community at large is sadly lacking. I don't understand why programmers get away with it. From an engineer's perspective, it just looks like shoddy design or laziness. Is it just that software is so intangible, and losses due to bad code are hard to quantify? Is it that we're just used to buggy software and it doesn't occur to us that it could be otherwise?
(Frustration brought to you by:
Sobig: Bogging Down My Company's Network Since Early This Week
and
Win2k SP Four: Breaking Third Party Software So You Don't Have To.)
-Carolyn
The guy who will actually take the X prize (Score:1, Interesting)
Burt Rutan is the man who will win this, if anybody will. He is already flight testing the damn thing.
Going the other way 'round... (Score:3, Interesting)
...wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea.
Yeah, but damn if that code wouldn't be perfect.
Think to the bad old days of batch processing, where you handed your code to one of the engineer/sysadmin/priests, who would feed it to the system when the system was done doing its current work. You might not get the results of the build+run for 24 hours after submitting it. And you wouldn't get another chance for another 24 hours.
So, before you handed in the code, you would read it. Because the smallest typo would set you back another 24 hours. You would try to prove -- formally, mathematically -- that it was correct, because a simple logic error ("oops, wrote ==, wanted to write !=") would set you back 24 hours, and doing the proofing was faster than waiting an additional day.
Maybe they "got nothing done" back then, but when that software was finished, it was good.
Re:He still doesn't have an engine (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, he is having the same problem he had with his helicopter/SSTO project. He doesn't have an engine yet, and time is running pretty short for development. He has two contractors bidding, but the timeline is so tight, that more than one or two major development hiccups will screw the pooch for his project. White Knight and SSO are great looking, and the concept is sound, but it took 3 years to design a decent engine for the x-15, and I have a feeling that designing one for a ship designed for the same flight profile as the x-15 will have similar problems. Don't hand him the check just yet.