On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:27:00 -0800, Pierce Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>just for Spike, I can cut the length down to 12'. It also looks like I'm >going to have to go with a form that uses fly-away rail buttons of some >kind -- I just can't seem to get the shoe idea to work within a decent mass >and dollar budget. How big would these rail buttons be? If we're talking about delrin buttons of a size that can't hurt someone even falling at terminal velocity, then fly-aways are OK. Not preferred, but OK. >>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)...? > > That would be guilding the lily. As long as we can adjust it >manually fairly simply any time up to the pressurization step, we're >golden. Adjust it manually fairly simply *and* safely *and* quickly and easily. > BTW, I plan to put arrangements for mounting an anemometer and >windvane on the top of the tower in my designs. Good. > We don't really want to fly straight up in high winds, however. >Straight vertical flight == long drive for recovery, and possibly a long >walk as well. Yes we do. Weathercocking == high horizontal velocity == damaged parachute. We can't have it both ways. If we don't want to risk shredding the parachute, and we don't the thing to land a long way off, then we can't launch in the kind of wind we've been launching in. I'm in favor of compensating for the wind and four wheeling across the desert for recovery. Another alternative, which we're going to have to do for Spike so we might as well test it in KISS, is dual deployment. -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
