On 27 Sep 2003, Rick Eversole wrote: > My primary concern over the low static testing levels is that teaches > the wrong engineering practices. I've been to MTA and seen dangerous > results directly attributable to the attitude that it is better to fly > than to test. I can learn more from a flight :(
I would venture to say that if you have seen dangerous activities, it was not at an RRS-sponsored firing. In any case, I would like to hear from you directly about what you saw. We work very hard to maintain our perfect safety record. I also put forth the argument that flying *is* testing. Going back to the poor benighted CSULB spike engine, it operated just as expected on it's one good test firing. Every succeeding test would be a reliability test, because we had no interest in fully characterizing the engine, just verifying that it worked according to the design, using the propellant delivery system we were going to fly it with. That means that we could do reliability testing in flight, because the operating parameters would be the same. (Remember, we're flown the propellant delivery system on many previous flights with other engines.) Please remember that our goal was not to develop an ideal engine, just design and build one that worked as designed. Reliability was not the driving factor in this particular design. In fact, it's a poor candidate for further development because of weaknesses in the basic design. However, that's all beside the point, because whether the failure happened on the test stand or in flight, the same lesson is there to be learned. Therefore, the students (or any experimenter) can both continue one line of testing while advancing another, perhaps by flying other experiments on the test vehicle. Thanks to HPR and their nifty electronic widgets, we experimenters can get rockets back despite all sorts of nasty goings on while in flight. -Dave McCue _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
