John Carmack To Cut Space Tourism Prices 50% 185
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like John Carmack, through Armadillo Aerospace, will be battling Burt Rutan and Richard Branson to make space travel affordable. From the article: 'Space Adventures is going to use an Armadillo Technologies rocket to launch amateur astronauts 62 miles into the sky. Nothing new, except that they will do it at half the price of Virgin Galactic's ticket, and in a real rocket!' Perhaps I'll visit space, after all."
Re:YAY! Now I can afford to go! (Score:2, Informative)
It ain't space below 7km/s (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the difficulty lies in accelerating up to orbit and decelerating from it. Currently, only Space Adventures is offering that by reserving seats on Soyuz spacecraft. Sub-orbital shots require neither powerful rockets nor massive heat-shielding.
Video (Score:3, Informative)
Crappy picture in the article, here's a video of the concept vehicle [youtube.com].
At Space Access, after the grumblings about being trumped on the LLC, Carmack made the pledge [kluft.com] that this year they'll be doing something new. Here's hoping it involves *people*.
Re:Half of 200k is still 100k (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks, genius.
Launch videos of Armadillo; "real" rocket (Score:5, Informative)
I linked to this is a previous slashdot submission, but for the curious you can see video of some of Armadillo's launches in the past year here:
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos [armadilloaerospace.com]
Youtube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdpB6UmrAw [youtube.com]
There was also a rather cool news update back in January describing in great detail what they've been up to for the prior 8+ months: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=369 [armadilloaerospace.com]
Also, I disagree with the summary/gizmodo's claim that Armadillo has a "real" rocket while SpaceShipTwo isn't a real rocket. Armadillo has a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is an air-launched HTVL (horizontal take-off, vertical landing). Both are "real" rockets.
Finally, NASA recently put out a request for proposals for a testbed for lunar lander demonstrations, which I think will be right up Armadillo's alley. They'll probably be competing with companies like Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems (Lunar Lander Challenge winner, currently working on their "Xogdor the Meltinator" vehicle), and Unreasonable Rocket:
http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2010/05/shoulda-had-tfftb-prize.html [blogspot.com]
ETDD is for smaller technology development and demonstration projects. Expected subjects for ETDD include in situ resource utilization, autonomous precision landing, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-loop life support systems, advanced EVA, radiation shielding, human-robotic interfaces, efficient space power systems, EDL (entry, descent, and landing) technologies, high-performance materials and structures, and participatory exploration.
The new ETDD RFI is for several technology demonstrations. The subjects of these demonstrations include:
* In-Situ Resource Utilization: This is to demonstrate a prototype ISRU system in a vacuum chamber that can simulate lunar temperatures and that can contain lunar simulant. Later, there would be a flight demonstration at the lunar surface on a robotic precursor mission. Of course this plan brings to mind several lunar space prizes: the Regolith Excavation Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.
* High-Power Electric Propulsion System for human spaceflight
* Human Exploration Telerobotics: This involves ISS-to-ground telerobotics, ground-to-ISS telerobotics, and large-scale participatory exploration
* Fission Power Systems Technology
* Autonomous Precision Landing: This involves demonstrations on Earth of autonomous landing and hazard avoidance technologies. The long-range plan is to use the technology on a robotic lander on the Moon or other large body. The technology "Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions". The two major parts of this demonstration are the Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed and the Hazard Detection System.
The Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed deserves special attention. This test bed needs to be able to carry 100 kg of sensor/electronics payload as well as supporting mass for other subsystems, fly up to 1 km, translate horizontally, land at various angles ending in the last 30-50 meters with vertical landing, and fly for at least 210 seconds with the payload. I didn't see anything in the RFI about propulsion, but I imagine rocket-powered vehicles would have a bit of an edge.
Re:It'll never get that low. (Score:4, Informative)
The regulations - by the FAA's Office of Space Transportation (AST) - are already in place, and perfectly manageable. They asked John (and everyone else in the industry) for input on developing them, with a mind for both flight participant safety and safety of people on the ground.
Sales tax would seem to apply as well, as well as federal corporate income tax.
Are you under the impression that they'd tax it more than normal business transactions?
Nickled and Dimed (Score:2, Informative)
"Whaddya mean oxygen is another 20 mil?"
Re:It ain't space below 7km/s (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It ain't space below 7km/s (Score:3, Informative)
Where did you get that idea? Space is anything above 100km from the surface. Suborbital is any launch trajectory that intersects the surface of the planet.
Re:It ain't space below 7km/s (Score:4, Informative)
Space is not orbit. If you want to stay in space for a significant period of time, you must attain an orbit, but they're not one and the same. And I'm pretty sure anyone paying serious attention to this field recognizes that a suborbital shot is significantly easier than an orbital one. At any rate, easy is relative.
Don't play semantics, you usually end up making an ass of yourself.
- A rocket scientist
Re:Half of 200k is still 100k (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, and I don't even think it's actually that bad a price for early adoption either.
To many the idea of going into space is unimaginable, but getting it down to 100k means many people could afford it if they were willing to really work for it and perhaps downsize their house- i.e. if it was that important a dream to them.
If going into space is your greatest dream, then at this price you don't even really need to be a millionaire anymore. It's a price that's in grasp of most middle class folks if they're willing to make some sacrifices for it, and the price is as you say only going to go down over time.