Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.

>> ^charliem:

Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.


Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.

The more you know

Pretty sure a vehicle entering martian atmosphere has a longer drop and higher velocity than that.

This would be the final stage in the landing procedure for the rocket. Slowing it down to this speed to be able to make such a landing would be handled by other stages of the entire system. It wont be traveling at entry speeds when its that close to the ground of course... This system would kick in when its ready.

>> ^PHJF:

Pretty sure a vehicle entering martian atmosphere has a longer drop and higher velocity than that.

>> ^PHJF:

Pretty sure a vehicle entering martian atmosphere has a longer drop and higher velocity than that.


It was a Lunar contest, so that is most likely accurate.

Lunar!?!?

Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?

many quarters lost playing that game. >> ^Krupo:

Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?

The moon's a great place to build all kinds of evil shit. You wait, it will be more popular than drones or satellites one day. Picture a uranium powered robot howitzer with nearly unlimited ammo that can assassinate people on earth at will and defend itself for 190 years. It makes its own ammo from the moon dust and uses steam instead of gunpowder. Indestructible, with unbreakable command encryption.

>> ^zor:

The moon's a great place to build all kinds of evil shit. You wait, it will be more popular than drones or satellites one day. Picture a uranium powered robot howitzer with nearly unlimited ammo that can assassinate people on earth at will and defend itself for 190 years. It makes its own ammo from the moon dust and uses steam instead of gunpowder. Indestructible, with unbreakable command encryption.


You don't even need that. All you have to do from the moon to cause massive devastation to the earth is throw rocks. The moon is essentially uphill of a very large gravity well, all you need to do is give a rock a little push and BLAMO. Anything can be used for evil, from words to bombs it is seldom the thing that is the problem, usually it is the person/people.

This seems like an inefficient way of landing considering how much it costs to take shit into space. I guess if you're going to the moon or an asteroid where there is no atmosphere it's the only way, but not for rockets putting things in earth orbit or space station resupply.

Mission control will play like the Lunar Lander game.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.

Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.


Was this the company that got several tries for the contest were Armadillo Aerospace only got one?

So long as where it is landing isn't flammable!

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.

Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.

Was this the company that got several tries for the contest were Armadillo Aerospace only got one?


Armadillo Aerospace's vehicle could of made another attempt, but they decided against it because of a burned through engine nozzle, and rolled the vehicle at takeoff that caused other damage. Rockets ain't easy!

>> ^lurgee:

many quarters lost playing that game. >> ^Krupo:
Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?



That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Damn that game was hard!

http://youtu.be/L-GBq2X1wpg

I find technology/discovery bittersweet these days.

Totally awesome... yet still probably 10-15 years away from any significant world changing usefulness.