Gentlefolk,
<< even a vague approximation to the shape of the curve is much better than
trying to pretend it's flat. >>
This is a fundamental for "fuzzy logic" of the sort that keeps video
camera fields steady and many other things. Interesting to see it come up in
this context.
Before putting a lot of effort into CD determination, suggest one run an
ascent model with a range of assumptions (sensitivity analysis) to see how
much difference it makes. While it may be important to have a CD in, say,
the 0.2 ballpark rather than 1.0, the difference between, say, theoretical
values from 1.8 to 2.2 (combined with the uncertainty of the theory) may not
justify the effort to model it so accurately. If you show yourself so
marginal to orbit that it makes a difference, resources for that level of
accuracy may then become justified. But, more likely, you'll either be much
shorter than that or ;-) much better, and it will be a payload mass issue
later on.
I think the domed bottom of the Shuttle ET came first from
mass/structural reasons with detailed analytical explanations of why they
could leave it that way afterwards--along with, of course, wind tunnel tests
to be sure.
--Best, Gerald
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
