On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:59:57 -0800, David Weinshenker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I.e., we're gonna have to do a new one anyway... sounds like you're arguing for >remote adjustability, to allow for angle changes late in the launch sequence >(i.e., after pressurization)...? It wouldn't have to be remote; I got the impression from what Pierce was saying that it would elevate using a crank. I wouldn't object to someone adjusting the tower elevation while the rocket was fueled, or even pressurized if he had the arm key with him. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but I think it's an acceptable risk if we're going to fly in moderate winds in Mojave. In contrast, the previous tower angle adjustment procedure of picking up the base and moving it around is *not* a good idea with a fueled and/or pressurized rocket on the rail. >You actually hope to be able to "tune" the tower angle from trajectory >simulations well enough to keep the thing flying straight up in the Mojave >winds? I'd be somewhat impressed... can we know the wind environment at the >moment of launch, with sufficient resoulution and lead-time to do meaningful >calculations? We do the calculations in advance, and have an anemometer on a stand somewhere in the launch complex. Wind is such and such, liftoff acceleration is so and so, lean angle is this much. -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
