John Carmack wrote:
> I'll buy the "at the time", but nobody today should be using the regulatory
> cop out, unless they have demonstrated, say, multiple reliable 100,000'
> launches to show that the technical side really isn't that
> challenging. They are both challenging, but the evidence today shows that
> the regulatory challenges can indeed be met. So far, we only have hot air
> about the technical challenges, and deluding ourselves otherwise is
> counterproductive.
Agreed. TODAY, it's far more of a rocketry challenge. At the time,
people (nievely) felt that they could overcome the technical
challenges but no one had even tried the bureaucratic gauntlet and the
first look seemed well beyond the capabilities of small, underfunded,
volunteer groups. The expectation was that we'd need to get a proper
launch license (not a burn time waiver) and that process is not a
simple one.
> 60 second burn times with an unguided rocket is not going to work, you will
> have really significant gravity turn effects that greatly increase your
> landing zones and reduce your altitude. Unguided sounding rockets are spin
> stabilized, scaling HPR up to those levels alone won't work unless you are
> just really really lucky.
Agreed. Which is one of the reasons that ERPS dropped the Black Adder
II development line and went back to developing the capabilities that
would provide for controlled flight. You've gone much farther and
faster than most other groups becuase you've got more funds available
to do things, but you've also verified and demonstrated the soundness
of the approach and concepts that we've pursued for years.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oma Disala:
"The universe is vast and we are so small; there is only one thing we
can truly control: whether we are good or evil."
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
