Randall Clague wrote:
> I was trying to figure out how to describe our day. I didn't want to
> say we were successful, because we weren't entirely successful. But
> the day wasn't a failure, either. Neither were any of the flights.
> They all went up, they all went down, and they all recovered (mostly)
> intact.
The old line I used when we'd go out to the Ranch for static testing
applies to launches too - "We always learn something new when we
[test/launch]. It's rarely what we THOUGHT we were going to learn, but
we always learn something new."
> (BTW, the next person who leaves the launch complex on foot without a
> radio is going to answer to me for it. That's a safety violation. We
> don't just use a recovery vehicle because it's faster, we use it
> because it's safer. If you go out of earshot of the blockhouse, bring
> a radio with you. If you don't have a radio, bring someone who does.)
Part of that may have been my fault. The FRS radios I usually bring
are in Belmont and could have been picked up for the run down to MTA,
but I forgot to mention that. With the FRS radios, there'd have been
more to hand around. Mea culpa.
> The fin failure was about as benign as it gets, and another tribute to
> Dave W's engineering. The fin attach points are intact, as are the
> parts of the fins inside the lower body tube. The fins themselves
> failed, breaking off at the body tube.
Was it fin flutter vibrataion to the extreme? I agree that Dave's
fabrication has been excellent. We've learned new things and can
adjust and improve. Very solid engineering, Dave.
> I'm also wondering if some of the fins didn't break off after the
> vehicle got sideways, instead of under thrust. I think that's what
> happened, because the initial slew was fairly slow and graceful. It
> was only after it slewed around a fair amount that it began to tumble.
> That would also account for the two halves separating immediately
> after MECO.
Hmmm ... That could be, in which case I don't think there's much we
can do to strengthen the fins. Just keep the pointy end in the
direction of movement. 8-)
> Oh, is that what happened. I wish someone had told me that; I thought
> I was looking at a lawn dart.
Ya. Changes in operations prior to launch do need to be communicated
to all - especially trackers.
> We probably should have aborted that launch. Between the high wind
> and the baro altimeter problem, we were asking for trouble, and we got
> it. The parachute didn't change configuration on the descent, so it
> had already opened as much as it was going to. I heard a ripping
> sound for about a second which it deployed, which was pretty loud for
> just canopy popping.
Was it ever determined what the problem with the baro altimiter was?
Power? Dirt on a contact?
> If we're going to continue to launch in windy conditions, we need an
> anemometer, an easily leaned launch tower/rail, and a good 4DOF to
> tell us how far to lean the rail.
Sounds like we need a MET (Meteorolgy, Environments, Tracking) Officer
to measure and communicate said info the the RCO. No MET = no launch.
> Another change we need to make is that everyone takes some Tylenol
> before we go out - to cool off their launch fever! The default action
> always seemed to be to launch. That's backwards. Given comm
> problems, which we had all day, that leads you to launch when someone
> tries to tell you not to, but you don't hear him. Next time we
> launch, I want to hear final confirmation from the pyro operator,
> final confirmation from TRACON, positive confirmation that the air and
> ground are clear, and positive confirmation that all observers are
> ready to observe. In the absence of these confirmations, we HOLD.
A case of Rocket-Jock Fever, eh?
> We are under no obligation to launch on any given day, or in any given
> month. Our goal is reproducible flight, again and again and again.
> If we fly in such a manner that we can't reproduce the flight, like
> because we broke something, then we fail. We didn't fail on Sunday,
> but it wasn't because we made the right decisions; it was because we
> were lucky. Let's not be lucky. Let's be smart. Let's leave our
> launch fever in town, and take our prudence and our caution out to
> MTA.
Coming from the man who's an advocate of the "Fly early, fly often"
approach, I think we may need to amend that to "Fly safe, fly often".
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
