Post by thread:[OT]: How to suceed in a pioneering enterprise

[OT]: How to succeed in a pioneering enterprise The title is mine. I thought some may appreciate this advice from someone who SHOULD know what they are talking about. The advice relates to how to build rockets that will take people to orbit BUT it is written by John Carmack, a man who has already "made his fortune" as one of the founders of ID Software (Doom and family) and MAY translate into electronic entrepreneurial activities.. John is now attempting to do the above while still not quitting his day job. I believe he has budgeted $US1M for this project AND hopes to make money from it AND expects to have 3 people flying to 100 km within the next few years. So far he has unmanned "rocket-ships" flying round the ID Software car-park under better control than almost anything rocket powered I've heard of. Makes making a revolutionary PIC project sound like a doddle :-) RM _____________________________________________________________ At 09:16 PM 7/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>For John Carmack and many others: > >How does one go about setting up a development program for a complex >task like getting to orbit? I know about how things work (or don't, >often as not) in the commercial and government sector (I work for a >major aerospace manufacturer), but entrepreneurial aerospace is almost >an oxymoron. > >Where do you begin ? > >Don McCorvey >Houston, Tx While I currently theorize that many of the things that led to my success in software can also be moved to aerospace, the point is certainly open to contention without an existence proof, so you might want to weight the advice from people on the list with "real" entrepreneurial aerospace companies a little heavier. I have the enviable freedom to say "I'm not going to make any money off of this for at least three years", which allows me to focus on the goals, rather than little things like paying the rent... I am a bad person to ask about how to raise money, because I have bootstrapped my way up without having to ever borrow money or court investors. Still, I do have a thing or two to say about complex development projects that I feel have some general relevance. There is a huge benefit to keeping a project's scope small enough so that at least one person can have all of it available in their head. This limit will vary from person to person, but at some point, complexity gets to the point where specialization and compartmentalization is necessary. If at all possible, you want to stay below this point! The ability to do global, system wide thinking and optimization is what is going to enable dramatic, rather than incremental, improvements in the status quo. An "improvement" that complicates the design may push you into a local optimum that prevents you from reaching a more global optimum. I do think that even orbital vehicles can be made simple enough to be kept in one person's head. As someone else said, "just do it" is damn good advice. Lots of people spend all their time looking for a silver bullet that will make the hard things easy, and when it turns out that there isn't one, they have absolutely nothing to show for it. Want to go to space? Build a rocket. Then, build a better one. Repeat until in orbit. :-) I'm almost completely serious -- building a few generations of HPR rockets with an eye on the engineering is a better step than writing an AIAA paper. Always be aware of the critical path and the field of options. If you are working on something that isn't on the critical path, be prepared to justify why you aren't working on a critical path item. Take personal responsibility for the progress, or lack thereof, of the entire project. Groups can easily fall into "he was supposed to do that" sort of problems. It is best to lead by example, rather than by fiat. I wanted to expand on some of those points, but, well, I have to follow my own advice, and do some work on the Armadillo project... John Carmack -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Russell McMahon wrote: > > [OT]: How to succeed in a pioneering enterprise > > The title is mine. > I thought some may appreciate this advice from someone who SHOULD know what > they are talking about. > The advice relates to how to build rockets that will take people to orbit > BUT it is written by John Carmack, a man who has already "made his fortune" > as one of the founders of ID Software (Doom and family) and MAY translate > into electronic entrepreneurial activities.. Thanks for posting that! I have a great respect for those that spend many years trying and doing, rather than sitting in a classroom being told the "correct" way to do things and what to think. It's a shame that the REAL pioneers are few and far between these days, the people that thumb their noses at the accepted methodology and try things their own way no matter how ridiculous their own way may seem... In an age where people are told what to think, do and speak in the classroom, in the workplace, on the TV, etc I really feel sorry for the newer generations where individuality is seen almost as criminal behaviour. People like John Carmack as possibly the last of a dying breed, willing to make their own money doing their own thing, and risk any or all of it chasing their dreams. People who do what they want, HOW they want. I really hope he does well with this, and suspect he probably will... :o) -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Russell McMahon wrote: . > I believe he has budgeted $US1M for this project AND > hopes to make money from it AND expects to have > 3 people flying to 100 km within the next few years. > So far he has unmanned "rocket-ships" flying round the > ID Software car-park under better control than almost > anything rocket powered I've heard of. . . Roman Black wrote: . . > It's a shame that the REAL pioneers are few and far > between these days, the people that thumb their noses > at the accepted methodology and try things their own > way no matter how ridiculous their own way may seem... > In an age where people are told what to think, do and > speak in the classroom, in the workplace, on the TV, > etc I really feel sorry for the newer generations where > individuality is seen almost as criminal behaviour. . . It was australian movie about 15 years ago "One night stand", if I'm not mistaken. Fine picture of first night of atomic war. "REAL pioneers" may get these dreams come true. Though, I think, Russell is just joking: I can't believe that 007 US guys are a sort of stupid loafers to that extent. Mike. -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

> Russell McMahon wrote: > . > > I believe he has budgeted $US1M for this project AND > > hopes to make money from it AND expects to have > > 3 people flying to 100 km within the next few years. > > So far he has unmanned "rocket-ships" flying round the > > ID Software car-park under better control than almost > > anything rocket powered I've heard of. > . > Roman Black wrote: > > It's a shame that the REAL pioneers are few and far > > between these days, etc Mike said: > Though, I think, Russell is just joking: I can't believe > that 007 US guys are a sort of stupid loafers to that > extent. Completely serious I assure you. But note that note that John is hardly an "007" guy but does represent a fine example of entrepreneurial success. And you certainly won't succeed at this if you are stupid or a loafer. John cofounded a software company that produces game software (that is in many cases played by stupid loafers :-) ) and as a result is rather rich. How rich I don't know, but rich enough to fund a million dollar dream which, if successful, will have very practical applications and implications. At present access to "Space" is largely controlled by the US, Russian Federation, China and the very successful ESA (nominally European, mainly French). Government and VERY large industry are the main players. Small players (such as eg Orbital with Pegasus etc) usually shelter under the wings of large organisations (such as NASA). Note that 'Russia' is currently a very successful supplier of engines to US space launch companies. John started with a small spidery metal framework that flew in brief hops and often enough crashed impressively. He now has a rather more solid craft that is potentially capable of carrying a man (or woman) for short hops. Within approximately the next two years he hopes to take all the international manned "time to altitude" records, largely currently held by modern fighter aircraft. (Point straight up, accelerate at 2g net - few if any manned flying craft will catch you. No runway time.) At that stage the world would suddenly take much more notice of what he is doing. The "X-Prize" target (3 people to 100 kilometre, repeat with same craft within a week) is designed to encourage opening up space flight to "the masses". The prize is AFAIR $US15,000,000. This is far from orbital flight as the velocities achieved are far lower but it IS space and there will be practical applications. The largest application however will be arguably non-practical. ie Space Tourism. I would strongly consider giving 10% of my net worth for one such flight. My wife's ideas on the subject would ensure it didn't happen :-). Plus my 10% wouldn't be enough to pay what it will cost when it happens. Many people with rather more money than I will pay for such capability. IF such a capability can be developed it will lead to increased abilities with orbital capability being the final "medium term" aim. Major difference to how it is done now will be cost - it has to cost enough to work but be as cheap as possible. Too cheap solutions lead to fiery and spectacular failures. Too dear and you run out of money. Finding cheap and successful ways to do it is what the game is about. How to do it is, possibly, in John's outline. John has got the ability to succeed at this. He may not make it but it won't be for lack of trying. If he (and others) succeed then the effect on space access will be revolutionary. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email .....listservKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

Mike Singer wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Russell McMahon wrote: > . > > I believe he has budgeted $US1M for this project AND > > hopes to make money from it AND expects to have > > 3 people flying to 100 km within the next few years. > > So far he has unmanned "rocket-ships" flying round the > > ID Software car-park under better control than almost > > anything rocket powered I've heard of. > . > . > Roman Black wrote: > . > . > > It's a shame that the REAL pioneers are few and far > > between these days, the people that thumb their noses > > at the accepted methodology and try things their own > > way no matter how ridiculous their own way may seem... > > In an age where people are told what to think, do and > > speak in the classroom, in the workplace, on the TV, > > etc I really feel sorry for the newer generations where > > individuality is seen almost as criminal behaviour. > . > . > It was australian movie about 15 years ago "One night > stand", if I'm not mistaken. Fine picture of first night of > atomic war. "REAL pioneers" may get these dreams > come true. Mass destruction is easy. Now causing mass healing, or mass love, those are difficult. (butchering an old buddhist saying) :o) > Though, I think, Russell is just joking: I can't believe > that 007 US guys are a sort of stupid loafers to that > extent. I assume you mean you can't believe the US sneaky guys let civilians build rockets and fly them around the car park?? They do. But they do keep an eye on their progress, the email spying systems like echelon etc go beserk over these lists like the piclist and the model rocket club lists. ;o) -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

For those interested in following the progress: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/ I didn't catch if that site had been posted yet in the thread or not, And an article on gamespy.com talks about John and his adventures: http://www.gamespy.com/gamespin/september01/gamespin25/ I think they humorously under-rate him when refering to some of his crash film footage: "I think after you see it you'll realize that when it comes to building rockets, Carmack is a great game developer." Good fun, Jay On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}> [OT]: How to succeed in a pioneering enterprise > > The title is mine. > I thought some may appreciate this advice from someone who SHOULD know what > they are talking about. > The advice relates to how to build rockets that will take people to orbit > BUT it is written by John Carmack, a man who has already "made his fortune" > as one of the founders of ID Software (Doom and family) and MAY translate > into electronic entrepreneurial activities.. > > John is now attempting to do the above while still not quitting his day job. > I believe he has budgeted $US1M for this project AND hopes to make money > from it AND expects to have 3 people flying to 100 km within the next few > years. So far he has unmanned "rocket-ships" flying round the ID Software > car-park under better control than almost anything rocket powered I've heard > of. > > Makes making a revolutionary PIC project sound like a doddle :-) > > > RM -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu