[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [..] If I recall, there was some FAA red tape that applied if your > burn time was longer than 15 seconds, which is rather ridiculously > short. I say design the rocket the way physics says you should, and > just deal with the paperwork. > > Still, you want to figure on leaving the pad around 4 g's at least - > that is, generating 5 g's worth of thrust, for 80% initial flight > profile efficiency. LV2 was well into the double digits, if i > remember correctly.
Some things have changed. I'm not sure they translate into paperwork reduction however. This is from an old post to the avionics list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Second of all, this was just too interesting to not pass along. The FAA > has been reviewing amateur rocketry rules for a while, and they've > almost gone and made them more sane. I'm impressed. > > The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (called the 'AST', for > whatever reason) has a TON of interesting documents on their website  > for commercial space interests. Lots of requirements and discussion on > everything from structural analysis, to software design, to failure > analysis. There's a lot of reading to be done here! > > Most interesting and apropos is the new proposed rules under > "Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities" . It's a revamping of > the amateur rocket regulations, and it's not half bad. > > 1. It gets rid of the previous weird ballistic coefficient and burn time > requirements, which never really made sense to us. > > 2. It replaces those requirements with a 150 km (328,000 ft) altitude > limit (they don't want us to hit anything), a maximum impulse on the > engine (about a 'Q'), a ban on orbital insertion (sub-orbital only for > us amateurs :), and finally forbids crossing international lines without > an agreement. Not too terrible. > > 3. It divides rocketry into four classes: Model Rocks, Large Model > Rockets, High-Power Rockets, and Advanced High-Power Rockets. It looks > like for the next few launch with an M/N/O motor, we're a class 3, which > means very little changes for us. When we start going higher, or > staging, we'll transition to class 4, which means more paperwork > justifying that we have a safe rocket, have safety measures in place, > etc., which doesn't seem too onerous. > > And as we've always known, orbital insertion means having a "commercial > class" launch vehicle, with all the heaps of licenses, safety > regulations, and bureaucracy that entails. Thanks to Tom for a almost > readable discussion of what that exactly entails . >  http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/ >  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-11263.pdf >  http://colonyfund.com/Reading/papers/NH_rocket_contents.html Keeping the vehicle aligned to the mission is important. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > For propulsion-only tests I wouldn't be too concerned about undamaged > recovery - even with a theoretically perfect launch and recovery, the > thing's still gonna be completely rebuilt between flights. The idea > is, you make it simple enough that you can do 5 test flights per year Ok, i understand. Big motor, good chance it's going to blow anyway. stick a tube on it, add fins, stand back ;) _______________________________________________ psas-propulsion mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-propulsion