Adrian Tymes wrote: > Something to keep in mind, perhaps, but do any of ERPS's projects > currently use lubricant?
I refuse to talk about my private life on this list. ;-) > Also, is it just me, or does this smell of fortune telling? ... > Which is not to say it's never useful, for the same reasons > that fortune tellers can be useful (Desperately tries to drag back ontopic:) It adds randomness. When I'm doing trajectory analysis, I use random diddling (a crude form of annealing) to optimise my trajectory and see if I can achieve orbit. I keep something that works, try something else if it doesn't. Wash repeat rinse. Seems to work. However. all my rockets (under 10 tonnes all up) seem to have difficulty reaching orbit if they have a diameter much above 20 cm or so. Has anyone else found this, or am I messing up my aerodynamics (what IS a good Cd factor for, say, a conical rocket anyway?) or should I be trying to modify my oxidiser mixture (thrust) or something? I've found modulating the thrust to be a huge win (controlling airspeed from maybe 5-70km to avoid too much drag seems absolutely critical for achieving altitude/orbit, at this small size), probably any size- I know the space shuttle throttles back at max Q. Or I could try fortune telling; "your rocket was born a leo- Jupiter is in the ascencion, I foresee travel." Or Trix- your problem will have roundness in it- hey the earths round, and so is the rocket! They work! It's fantastic! ;-) >> Dr. Rafi Yoely is about to start flight testing of his flying car any >> day now. > > Any idea how long it'll take to get over to the US and get FAA approval? Flight time could be a few days. Approval could be a few years. -if it works and it's practical which I doubt. >> It's supposed to carry two people for one hour at 100kph. > > A 100 mile range limit seems to be the main thing keeping electric cars > from wide consumer acceptance. 100 km < 100 mi. Still, this will > presumably refuel much faster, and (barring regulations, which I know is > a serious misfit w/reality) this could go in a straight line instead of > having to follow the roads... I think I prefer the Carter Copter architecture for an air vehicle provided it can be a) mass produced b) given more or less ensured stability.via computer control The aerodynamic efficiency should be higher; and the system is simpler and should be cheaper to maintain; and for air vehicles good aerodynamics is rather important. Also the failure modes of Carter Copter should be more benign in most cases.. _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
