On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:35:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Wallis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (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. No; that wasn't a logistical problem, it was an application problem. We had enough radios, but we were short in the application of common sense. >> 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-) The fins do need to be strengthened to withstand supersonic flight, because we'll want to take KISS supersonic in prep for Spike, if not just to appease our TTS. I think one of the fins failed from normal flight stress, and the rest failed from the resulting abnormal flight stress. So if the first fin hadn't let go, another would have shortly, with the same outcome. Fortunately, fin design and fabrication are pretty easy. :-) >> 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. It's a thought... >> 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". W just need to recognize that flying early is useless if it prevents us from flying often. "Fly crash come back next month," is *always* slower than, "Fly recover fly recover fly recover." Let me emphasize that we did not crash. We didn't even seriously damage anything except a piece of GSE we wanted to replace anyway. We didn't injure anyone, we didn't damage any common or private property, we didn't even annoy anyone (except me). Nothing Bad happened. We just strayed far enough from Goodness that I'm doing my shepherd thing and urging us back toward prudence and safety. Bark bark. :-) -R -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire." -Sir Charles Kingsford Smith _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
