Armadillo Aerospace Resurrected On Kickstarter By the Team Members 29
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.
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.
16 current supporters as I looked (Score:2)
probably means their 80s sound track is not purveying the proper image of modernness and cutting edge they require.
Why sub-orbital? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Why sub-orbital? (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" [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Nice pairing (Score:3)
Now we have "Company fails, then (attempts to) get Kickstarted."
Kickstarter seems like a bad deal to me. (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ambitions far too small (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
>$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. Suborbita
Meant sub-orbital. (Score:1)
I actually meant sub-orbital, typo. I referred to that later but it was absolutely confusing. Sorry about that.
Good luck... (Score:2)
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...
Why? (Score:2)
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.