On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 09:35:57 -0700, David Weinshenker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You fired mortars in the Marines (or saw them fired), didn't you?
Good God, no. (That's way too much like work. You don't even want to
get near it; it's contagious.) But I see your point.
-R
--
"SEAL training
I'm no ERPS member but I for one can't wait for that Tracy HPR field. If it
ever comes. My PML Eclipse desperately needs some flight time so I can build
avionics for it that actually fly :-)
Maybe I should start sweet talking my wife into letting me go to the next
Fresno TRA launch.
Sander
>
Randall Clague wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 23:20:02 -0700, David Weinshenker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >From this, we can deduce that the trajectory will depend on
> >the thrust-time history as well as the initial launch angle -
> >and (other factors being equal) the path of a long-burn
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 23:20:02 -0700, David Weinshenker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From this, we can deduce that the trajectory will depend on
>the thrust-time history as well as the initial launch angle -
>and (other factors being equal) the path of a long-burning
>rocket will be more influence
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:03:46 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Under active control, one scarcely notices...
>Under passive control, though, it builds up
This indeed describes how a gravity happens. What I'm wondering about
is the role propulsion plays in a gravity turn.
-R
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:56:23 -0700, David Masten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think there is an unstated assumption here. The long burn time comes
>with lower acceleration.
We were talking about CSXT's 100 km attempt, so I indeed assumed lower
acceleration for a longer burn time. Ignoring that
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:45:19 -0700, David Masten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dang nab it, now I have to go write out the equations and figure it out.
>(Again!!)
Sorry...
-R
--
"SEAL training is just like Ranger training, except
it's three weeks longer. It takes that long to teach
them how to b
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 22:45, David Masten wrote:
> Dang nab it, now I have to go write out the equations and figure it out.
> (Again!!)
Right, so acceleration in x = thrust/mass * sin(theta) - g and in y =
thrust/mass * cos(theta). derive for velocity(Vx and Vy). The new theta
= atan(Vx/Vy). g is
Randall Clague wrote:
> OK - this matches both my observations and my intuition. But, I don't
> see why this is so. Mathematically, it seems to me that a gravity
> turn is independent of whether the vehicle is under power; and that ,
> second for second, the trajectory will look the same, powered
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:56, David Masten wrote:
> The gravity turn looks identical second for second along the horizontal
> (with a bunch of simplifying assumptions),
Actually, is this even true?
Dang nab it, now I have to go write out the equations and figure it out.
(Again!!)
Dave
--
Davi
--- Randall Clague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:20:44 -0700, Pierce Nichols
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Long burn time passively guided rockets have a
> tendency to do rather
> >extreme gravity turn maneuvers that result in lots
> and lots of
> >horizontal velocity a
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:28, Randall Clague wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:20:44 -0700, Pierce Nichols
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Long burn time passively guided rockets have a tendency to do rather
> >extreme gravity turn maneuvers that result in lots and lots of
> >horizontal veloci
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:20:44 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Long burn time passively guided rockets have a tendency to do rather
>extreme gravity turn maneuvers that result in lots and lots of
>horizontal velocity at burnout. Hence, the slant range and dispersion
>are gre
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 09:56, Randall Clague wrote:
> I'm missing something. What does burn time have to do with
> dispersion? Unless most of the dispersion is caused by the engine,
> you'll have the same gravity turn regardless of whether more or less
> of it is powered; the energy is the same.
John Carmack wrote:
> I'll buy the "at the time", but nobody today should be using the regulatory
> cop out, unless they have demonstrated, say, multiple reliable 100,000'
> launches to show that the technical side really isn't that
> challenging. They are both challenging, but the evidence t
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:31:57 -0500, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>60 second burn times with an unguided rocket is not going to work, you will
>have really significant gravity turn effects that greatly increase your
>landing zones and reduce your altitude. Unguided sounding rockets ar
At 10:37 PM 10/2/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:39:48 -0500, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It was clear from the first workshop that the regulatory requirements
>>would be more of a challenge than the rocketry ones.
>
>God, I hate that cop-out.
>
>Several amateurs have go
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:39:48 -0500, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It was clear from the first workshop that the regulatory requirements
>>would be more of a challenge than the rocketry ones.
>
>God, I hate that cop-out.
>
>Several amateurs have gotten regulatory clearance for 100+ km f
It was clear from the first workshop that the regulatory requirements
would be more of a challenge than the rocketry ones.
God, I hate that cop-out.
Several amateurs have gotten regulatory clearance for 100+ km flights --
Ky, HARC, and interorbital at least. None have managed the rocketry
chal
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:42:46 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would phrase the moral a little differently: amateur rocketry is not
>> big enough to sustain serious internecine warfare. Competition can
>> benefit everyone, but warfare has winners and losers.
>
> I conc
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:02, Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> I would phrase the moral a little differently: amateur rocketry is not
> big enough to sustain serious internecine warfare. Competition can
> benefit everyone, but warfare has winners and losers.
I concur -- friendly competition can
David Weinshenker wrote:
> 1-1/2 stages? How was that to have worked? You weren't going to use
> the Atlas configuration and drop off some engines as a tankless "partial
> stage", were you?
Black Adder itself was a single stage HTP monoprop UGLV designed to
simplicity and "getting something in
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Randall Clague wrote:
> The CATS Prize created a competition where what was needed was
> synergy. It was synergy that got KISS flying. That lesson - that
> amateur rocketry is not big enough to sustain serious internecine
> competition - is a valuable one.
I would phrase the
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:09:36 -0700, David Weinshenker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, I'm not sure that the "prize" structure of the whole affair was
>a good idea... rocket folks seem (IMHO) to be rather insular and secretive
>in general, and setting it all up as a "contest" tended to exacerb
Randall Clague wrote:
> David Weinshenker wrote:
> > Does the CATS world count? :)
> It was a good technical goal for amateur rocketry. In hindsight,
> something that didn't require AST involvement might have been better
> suited to the amateur rocketry mindset.
Also, I'm not sure that the "prize"
25 matches
Mail list logo
