On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 04:54:50 -0600, John Carmack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We would just stick ground-penetrator spike on the base legs for the final >bit of landing attenuation. This makes me cringe a bit, from a regulatory perspective. "You're going to poke holes in what you land on, *on purpose?*" That's an Ec of 1.0 for that point - you'll be absolutely required to prove you won't land in a populated area, and you'll have to run physical security in and around your LZ anyway. But, as should have occurred to me days ago, you'll have to do that with the crushable nose anyway. How are you planning to handle getting approval for your landing site? -R -- Every complex, difficult problem has a simple, easy solution - which is wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
