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)
Then != Than (Score:2, Informative)
Then [reference.com] != Than [reference.com]
And yeah, parent post is a troll.
"this holy war"? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason for having two words, then and than. It's preferrable to have exact words that aren't dependent upon context. If we just toss out "than", and exclusively use "then", our language will become even less precise.
Some other common mistakes that really suck:
confusing "your" with "you're"
confusing "their" with "they're"
adding unnecessary apostrophes to plural words - Dog's and Cat's...
Just because some people have forgotten or were never taught how to write the language they speak doesn't mean that we should just dumb it down completely. Taken to the extreme, we could just back all the way up to grunts and growls.
Re:"this holy war"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"this holy war"? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do know that at the rate we're going, our language will have half as many words in perhaps 10 years. I'm exaggerating of course, but if we take all homonyms [earthlink.net]
and pick just one word for each set, we'll be giving up a lot of communicative control.
And yes, it is ignorance that is ruining the language. We may not have formal language police like the French, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. Ask is still pronounced "ass
Re:"this holy war"? (Score:2)
And now I tell you, in the immortal words of Snoop, EAD.
Re:"this holy war"? (Score:2)
i got no prblm with positive change, but when u start takin control out of the language, not on purpose, but out of ignorance, i get bothrd.
when wuz the last time u interacted with sum1 who butchered the language?
anywayz, I lerned enuf french to get by (written, not spoken).
if ur calling this an acceptable evolution of English, then ur part of the problem.
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can afford to test your hardware as often as you can, do it. A test is worth a million analysis plots.
Making mistakes in a test environment is the best way to learn about your design and your own limitations.
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:5, Insightful)
For spaceflight, we need people who think like the old school programmers. The ones that actually planned their programs before they wrote them. When it took twenty-four hours (or more) between when you submitted your card deck and when you got your output (or a core dump) you learned to be damned careful with your code. The modern attitude of "keep tweaking it until it compiles; we'll fix the bugs in 2.0" won't wash in spaceflight.
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software developers have learned that the Waterfall model *doesn't work* because it's too slow, expensive, and inflexible. Sound like any space programs you know?
There is a continum between experimentation and analysis. So long as space is dominated by risk-averse govt. bureaucracies, your vision of space exploration will continue to slowly plod along. But remember when the real progress happened: in the 60s, when rockets blew up quite often. The consequence of a failed unmanned flight is only financial, and that means failure can be justified by overall savings.
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:2)
Yes it will, if there are enough spaceflight companies.
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:2)
Re:Software Design != Rocket Design OR does it? (Score:2, Funny)
utter nonsense, there are billions of people on earth, how many of them do you really think will fit in 1.0? If it crashes there's plenty of room for people to go on 2.0.
Software Design *most definitely* != Rocket Design (Score:3, Interesting)
I fucking shudder to think of the average softw
Re:Software Design *most definitely* != Rocket Des (Score:3, Informative)
I know from personal experience that the test-patch-test-patch cycle is alive and well in all the software products produced by the aerospace corporations that I have worked at.
The design of the product like a airplane or ship or whatever itself might need alot of upfront resources, but I will tell you that there are multimillion dollar maintenance contracts on aerospace software maintenance. Fixing bugs that got by QA.
This is f
Re:Software Design *most definitely* != Rocket Des (Score:2)
or impossible
hm (Score:4, Funny)
"Crap, the rocket is not ready and the deadline for launch is tomorrow!"
"Bah, launch it anyways and we'll release a patch later!"
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].
Re:hm (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, got my Napoleon complex on there for a minute.
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Making software to run on a platform that can have almost unfathomable perumutations is not the same as writing software for one set of components.
already thought of (Score:4, Funny)
We had a very slow uplink, maybe 300 baud (packet overhead and protocol turn-around time included). And we had a lot of code. The satellite was visible only for maybe 8 minutes out of every 90 minute orbit, so unless we had ground stations positioned all around the world and synchronized, we were effectively limited to about 30 baud long-term average. And we had a lot of code.
What's worse is we figured that the radiation environment would reset the satellite every so often... this was fine in normal operation, but would kill an upload. It would be almost statistically impossible to upload the entire code without an upset.
So, we all got back to work.
Eventually, we got good code and launched the satellite. Unfortuantly, the rocket flew off-course and was blown up by the range safety officer -- the satellite ended up in the water. Our company also made bouys (functionally, they are similar concept satellites), so the debate was always whether we should load the regular code or the bouy code into the satellites. We didn't try to figure out the code-uplink case for "underwater".
Of course they're the same (Score:2)
"Crap, the rocket is not ready and the deadline for launch is tomorrow!"
"Bah, launch it anyways and we'll release a patch later!"
Of course they are the same. Just ask the Challenger crew...
Wow, that's a morbid joke. Sorry.
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most people are more than happy to pay for complete crap, including bugs, being incomplete, and any number of other odd problems, there is
Re:hm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hm (Score:2)
Except, of course, that iD software is one of the few companies that doesn't like to do that.
They tend not to release software until 'it is ready'. That's because they have enough money (and they control their own company) that they set the release schedule.
I can empathize. (Score:5, Funny)
"Effectively, I stopped buying Ferraris and turbo-charging them and started building rocket ships," Carmack says.
Yeah, I hate it when I have to put off buying Ferraris.
On the other hand ... (Score:2, Funny)
Flight director (emerging from flaming debris): Errr
Crashes (Score:4, Funny)
Carmack says: Some people have commented that I am trying very hard to make aerospace like software, and that's the truth
Unfortunate analogy?
Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost (Score:2)
I bet a Lear Jet doesn't contain 10s of millions in raw material, most of the cost is in the salaries of researchers.
I'm sure Photoshop and Outlook cost a ton of money of develop. Does that mean nobody should use Gimp and Evolution? It's the difference between a business and a hobby. And that difference is $$.
Re:Cost (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think that FAA will let John launch if there is a house in the flight-path. Besides, John will be launching pretty much vertically- he's not going for orbit (which means going sideways very fast); he's only going for 100km (which means going straight-up very fast).
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Some of the guys down at the Cape used to say things like "You'd never get me to sit up top a rocket built by the lowest bidder!"
Their astronaut buddies would just laugh at them. "You clearly don't have any idea," they'd say.
I think I'd fall in the first camp, but there will always be people who fall in the latter camp.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
These rockets are being built with more or less volunteer time and by people who are willing to scrounge for parts and look long and hard for bargains. I think you'd find that the raw materials that go into a Learjet aren't all that expensive (steel by the pound, etc...), but the labor costs, health plans, salespeople comissions, buildings, paperclips, etc... add considerably to the cost of the final product.
Re:Cost (Score:3, Informative)
My father owns a small plane. Items which should cost $5-$10 for a car often cost $90 - $100 for a plane. You'd be amazed at the amount you pay for aviation insurance. My father pays something like $750.00/mo in insurance and he's been flying since before I was born.
Long story short, insurance and espec
Re:Cost (Score:2)
In fact when he bought a GTO, which is a nice but not especially expensive car, he considered buying a small plane instead as it only cost about 30% more.
A small plane in this case would be something about the size of a four seat, fixed wheels, single engine Cessna. When you think about it there isn't that much differenc
A perfect example (Score:2)
150 HP
Carbed
Magneto ignition
Requires leaded gas
50-year-old design
Horrendous polluter that runs rough
Cost: Approx $32,000 for a Lycosaurus
Meanwhile, you can get a complete car with a superior engine in all aspects (performance, reliability, smoothness) for under $20,000
Re:Cost (Score:2)
This makes it sound like an episode of "Junkyard Wars"
Re:Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cost (Score:2)
My name is Jeremy and I have an I.Q. of 6,000; the same I.Q. as 6,000 P.E. teachers!
Um, don't you mean your name is Holly? And wouldn't it be nice to give credit where it's due?
FAA (Score:2)
A significant cost of aircraft (non-experimental) is having to deal with the FAA and all its requirements.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
You can build a sports car that rivals a Corvette and get it road certified for only a few grand, even though a new Corvette costs a damned sight more than that.
Most of the expense of doing things, even making video games, comes from doing things in a standard way inside of a standardize buearacratic system.
Throw out the red tape, open your mind to alternative ways of accomplishing the same goals, work for the joy of it and eliminate the market as motivator and you might surprised at how much you can accomplish with relatively little cash.
Watch a few episodes of Rough Science.
KFG
Re:wrong (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
$ 6k 850 gallon fiberglass tank
$ 2k High pressure carbon fiber pressurant tank and regulator
$ 1k Honeycomb composite panels
$ 5k Aluminum fabrication for cabin
$15k Redundant parachutes, drogues, drogue cannons, releases
$13k Fiber optic gyro based IMU
$ 8k Unrestricted (supersonic / high altitude) GPS
$ 2k PC104 systems
$ 5k video, audio, and data communications
$20k Engine machining, catalysts, laser cut plates
$ 5k Plumbing, valves, etc
$ 5k Fastblock external insulation
For powered landings instead of parachute landings, delete the parachutes and add:
$ 4k Laser altimeter
$ 4k Wire rope isolator landing gear
You could trivially spend an order of magnitude more by just using "space certified" versions of everything, but the important point is that standard industrial versions of many things are perfectly adequate. In many cases, todays standard industrial practice is far ahead of the best that could be done at any price in the early sixties.
This is all with free labor for assembly and testing, but that is still only a couple hundred man hours for a full vehicle. We are expecting to destroy the first vehicle in some (unmanned) testing mishap along the way, and build another one mostly from scratch. That will take less than two months, depending on lead times for some items.
John Carmack
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:Dual use... (Score:2)
Re:Dual use... (Score:2)
Re:Dual use... (Score:2)
What does Daikatana have to do with Carmack? Just because someone who used to work at Id Software (John Romero) broke away and formed a NEW company and made a piece of crap software program means it's Carmacks fault?
That quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That quote (Score:2)
We should be building Insulated Concrete Form [ucf.edu] homes. Instead we're still building them out of toothpicks. ICF homes are very much more energy efficient, and cost only slightly more to make. They also greatly reduce fire risk and wind damage risk.
So offtopic as it is, this quote is invalid.
Re:That quote (Score:2)
(Yeah, yeah, I know. Steel reinforced blah blah...)
Re:That quote (Score:2)
ICF homes are rated for 200mph winds. Toothpick homes are good to about 100mph.
Having lived in Wichita Falls [noaa.gov] in 1979 [noaa.gov], tornadoes are something I pay attention [noaa.gov] to.
Re:That quote (Score:2, Informative)
There are other advantages to ICF's though. You can build the entire walls and roof without any inside
Re:That quote (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
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
TechTV (Score:3, Informative)
It will air again tonight at 6 PM EST.
Re:TechTV (Score:2)
A "mirror", if you will.
Rockets like Quake (Score:3, Funny)
"Our trajectory is acceptable for re-entry"=="Accuracy!"
"Our rocket landed, and it's data storage is still intact"=="Perfect!"
* luckyguesser almost dodged John_Cormack's rocket.
Re:Rockets like Quake (Score:2)
"Aerospace" (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Counterpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
The tricky part is that I don't think tests done with small rockets will necessarily give you a good idea of how the big rocket will perform. If that were the case, all we'd really need is to buy a model rocket kit from Wal-Mart and just build it 20x bigger.
Re:Counterpoint (Score:2)
No matter how good your software is, you're going to need brute force to get the vehicle into space in the first place. Putting three men into space is going to require a significant amount of energy, and no amount of programming genius will change that fact. More importantly, you're going to need a good bit more brute force than Armadillo Aerospace has been testing with so far.
The challenge is to do it specifically for the lowest possible cost. That means running your rocket damn efficient. That means
Re:It's not an entirely stupid process (Score:2)
The idea of using lots of little engines has been done by the Soviets. I forget what problems they had.
Re:Bandwidth? (Score:2)
Control system engineers as well as artificial intelligence scientists (where the two fields are slowly meeting at a point called "intelligent systems") might take offense at equating their entire fields to IT.
Can you licence Ship Design? (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it allready:
1) Carmack devises a ship that excells in performance, but requires very costly componenets in order to deliver on its full functionality.
2) After a years' worth of excellent operational records, other countries license the engine design and build their own ships off of it
3) 2 years after launch a thriving Spaceship MOD community is launching new ships into space every couple of months....
In Texas We Call That A Clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh.
Re:In Texas We Call That A Clue (Score:2)
That's also a clue about the quality of
One size does not fit all. (Score:2)
Yes but if your test program fails, all you've lost is small amount of time associated with compiling and executing the program.
If the test of your rocket on the other hand fails, you could lose more than just time but mat
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.
Aerospace like software? (Score:5, Funny)
Two Words (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always maintained that Burt is the odds-on favorite to win the X-Prize, but it isn't over yet. His design requires a pilot on board for all tests, so there is a non-negligable chance that there could be a fatality, which would almost certainly end the effort in the X-Prize timeframe.
John Carmack
Re:Two Words (Score:2, Funny)
Its about the testing methodology (Score:4, Informative)
Carmack merely wants to improve the method by which rockets are constructed. He says he starts small and builds his way up, rather than constructing the rocket and control system and then working for six months to work out the problems.
This is a well-known software development technique, and I don't see why it wouldn't be generalizable to other fields. If anything it should inspire more confidence in the creator at least.
... or is its a design methodology (Score:2)
This is an approach that seems to be completely counter-intuitive to the current methodology used to develop aerospace craft.
Take for example the X-33. It was a testbed for an advanced thermal protection system, aluminum-lithium cryogenic tanks, aerospike engines and internal structures. Not to mention the
not really comparable to NASA (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless (Score:2)
Anything to get some new ideas floating around nasa.
Just my opinion.
Things I like about Armadillo Aerospace's program (Score:4, Informative)
His program of building control systems and then big rockets is mentioned in the article. It's unfortunate that so far whenever they've tried to launch a rocket the computer has immediately crashed -- but they seem to have a handle on why this is happening and the current computer construction and mounting system is far better than the previous ones. He also has a tremendous amount of telemetry, and analyzes the inevitable failures exhaustively.
They is now using a fairly innovative mix of medium-strength hydrogen peroxide and some fuel to power the rocket. Other people (and Armadillo, previously) have used highly purified hydrogen peroxide, but that is hard to get (and expensive) in the quantities that they need. This mixed monopropellant has a higher specific impulse, too.
They are using a innovative final recovery system -- the ship lands nose first on a long aluminum cone that crushes to absorb energy. Unique, cheap, and innovative -- if funny-looking.
The thing I like the most, though, is his website http://www.armadilloaerospace.com [armadilloaerospace.com] (it will surely be slashdotted for the next couple of days.) Carmack is religious about posting the results of the last weeks efforts, warts and all. It appears that he receives substantial insight from people responding to these progress reports (apparently the mixed monopropellant research was instigated by somebody posting results of German WW2 torpedo experiments.) This kind of openness is quite rare in aerospace research.
Anyway, all the best to Carmack et al. I think that Rutan's Spaceship One project may win the X prize, but maybe not -- his system depends on a lot of planning and simulation being accurate, whe re Armadillo can respin the project many ways if things don't work out the first (or second) try.
thad
I agree (Score:2)
Incremental testing vs. full test flights (Score:3, Insightful)
Aerospace problems are a lot harder than software problems, but unlike software, you can't share aerospace. You can't make a web page, have your achievements downloaded, and leave a lasting impression on people by building a rocket prototype. It ends up being done for yourself, isolated. Except for one or two blog articles no-one thinks about it.
note to self (Score:4, Funny)
Some bizarre responses (Score:5, Insightful)
This is based on the completely false assertion that code will be better / more bug free if you "think harder". It ignores that in the past 30 years of programming we have learned the value of feedback in the software development thought process.
The idea that somehow if I spend more time in a chair planning the solution that the solution will be better if I evolve my way to it is some sort of romantic vision of how solutions to tough problems are actually solved. This could be seen as a version the "prove the code works" vs. "test the code" debate. Or that proofs follow from the axioms. I counter that usually it's a process of some rather messy creativity, trial, and error.
In programming in the large, we have generally learned that "phased" approaches to software development (known as waterfall) tend not to work very well because they de-emphasize the feedback that occurs downstream in the development process. To contrast, an incremental approach enables smaller steps to be delivered , and minimizes the impact of erroneous assumptions discovered downstream in the development.
In programming in the small, development is a form of communication between the computer and the developer. The computer is designed to tell us where we are wrong, we just need to tell it exactly what to expect: for this we have compilers and test cases. Compilers can't catch everything.
Now, this is not suggesting that today's style of "let's see if it compiles!" development is appropriate for aerospace. That is the unfortunate effect of feedback & incremental approaches - it makes programming easier, even for people that shouldn't be doing it. These people "program by accident", and just meander through their code until it does the job, sort of. This is not a reflection of the incremental approach in the hands of an experienced developer that "programs on purpose", that understands what he or she is doing at every step of the way.
Aerospace development isn't "amateur hour", and the incremental approach will just make professionals all the more productive.
Re:Some bizarre responses (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, the good old days of test flight in the 50's and early 60's saw a lot of build-test-build programs that built capability incrementally. More recently, the DC-X program did the same thing (until it was killed), and Surrey Satellites in the UK has been very successful at incrementally developing better and better spacecraft. But most modern aerospace efforts get mired in bureaucracy that
Re:what's an X-Prize? (Score:3, Informative)
Never trust AC reposts! (Score:2, Informative)
* Claims that a server like abcnews.com, cnn.com, microsoft.com, etc is "slowing down"
* Anonymous Coward posts with no reference to the poster's true identity
* Lines like so he can cart around cocket parts
Re:Never trust AC reposts! (Score:2)
get a clue plz. mr anon =-[
Re:Never trust AC reposts! (Score:2)
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.
Re:A little more important than a contest (Score:2)
And people still die climbing Everest, or sailing single handedly across oceans, or journeying to the north/south pole.
I don't see where you can logically oppose the possible loss of life from individuals attempting to fly spaceships and not oppose people doi
Re:A little more important than a contest (Score:2)
No, It's Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Early development should be done by private groups since they're more flexible and agile. Then once a technology is established, larger bodies (NASA perhaps) could use their vast experience to manage/maintain. Despite the failings of NASA, they are still quite good at what they do. I doubt there are many other groups that can manag
Re:Uhhh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Commando-style projects (Score:2)
Try "The Mythical Man Month", originally published in 1975 (an expanded second edition was published in 1995). It is based on lessons learned during the development of the IBM System/360 and OS/360. It s
Re:Saturn V (Score:2)
The Saturn V could lift to Earth orbit only; the command module had an engine to go to the Moon. The design for the Nova was to be a direct to Lunar orbit vehicle; the first stage would have had nearly twice the thrust of the Saturn V. The unspoken goal of the Nova was that it would also be able to lift a vehicle to Earth orbit that was then capable of going to Mars.
Re:It's rocket science not computer science. (Score:3, Insightful)