At 11:42 PM 5/31/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>John Carmack wrote:
> >
> >
> > You are running ahead of us, but not too much. We are on our fifth drum of
> > peroxide now.
>
>Well, that's just the _latest_ batch of empties, we've gone through
>about 10 or 12 altogether :)
>
I concede. We won't have t
John Carmack wrote:
> What, you are telling us that your 400 pounds thrust engines are really 320
> pound thrust engines? A tad disingenuous.
>
> And come on, don't you really want "grossly overpowered" in your rocket
> plane? :-)
ISTR that with both engines lit, the EZ-Rocket _has_ to fly in a
Theoretically, yes. In practice they'd never *quite* spin at the same
rate. At these
kind of rotation speeds even 1% difference is 1000s of rpm. Plus, this
current
design of engine isn't throttleable but variations on the design of
course could be.
Still, the potential for SSTO is there with a
On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 02:11:01 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There's one awkward issue with this design though- what stops the body
>of the rocket turning with the engine?
The bearing. Is it going to be 100% effective? No, nothing ever is.
>I mean sure, you can add another th
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Randall Clague wrote:
> >There's one awkward issue with this design though- what stops the body
> >of the rocket turning with the engine?
>
> The bearing. Is it going to be 100% effective? No, nothing ever is.
As with Roton, in principle all you need is an electric motor p
I think it's about time for us to set up a lunar colony.
For practice, first let's set up a hypothetical one. Certain ERPS members have the
following moon-ish domains: (let me know if others have them and want to participate)
lunacity.com
freeluna.com
terraluna.org
My proposal is to set up a d
"Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars, this is as much mail as I'm going to dig up, so feel free to pipe
> them into the newsgroup. Thanks!
I'm injecting them into the newsgroup as I spea^H^H^H^Htype...
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
With an even number of engines, you could handle all your roll control, at least when
you're under power, with brakes: apply the brakes on one or more engines, and it will
apply a torque to the rocket.
With an even number of engines, you could even handle an engine out scenario by
applying bra
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Randall Clague wrote:
> > >There's one awkward issue with this design though- what stops the body
> > >of the rocket turning with the engine?
> >
> > The bearing. Is it going to be 100% effective? No, nothing ever is.
>
> As with Roton, in principle
Fugoids
At these RPMS would there be enough force to torque a frame? Any frame just
enough... I'm thinking of gyro forces acting at a right angle.
Wouldn't weather cocking start a progressive corkscrew?
>
>
> Yep. I put a fair amount of work back at RotRock into means for
> torquing that huge m
10 matches
Mail list logo
