Not that I claim to know anything, but:
I'm wondering if John is walking (or flying) the inevitable path to
gimballing?
Starting with multiple engines seemed really marvellous (and it was) but he
found that jet vanes were immensely more satisfactory in practice.
The first successful mass produced liquid fuelled rocket used jet vanes, but
they have pretty much vanished from the medium to large sector and been
replaced either by vectoring using fluid injection or by gimballing. What
are the advantages of jet vanes over gimballing?
Perhaps:
- Less actuator force?
- Quicker response?
- Includes roll control?
- Engine rigidly fixed to frame.
- ???
Once you have gimballing implemented, the actual control aspects look like
theyd be a dream compared to multiple engines or jet vanes.
Longevity (measured in burn time) is preseumably less of a problem than jet
vanes. Engineering deals in providing adequate force rather than
thermomechanical considerations (vane ablation/survival, bearing/shaft life.
...). Reliability and safety would seem to be superuor - it does or doesn't
work and as long as it can survive the (horrendous) vibration environment it
keeps working.
Thoughts? (may be from John?)
Russell McMahon
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
