humm, spec the solid motors to put the rocket in the range of 105k to
110k and use an upward-facing RCS system + some software foo to take
that back down to exactly 100k... sounds plausible to me....

-d

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:14:21PM -0800, Nathan Bergey wrote:
>> 100,000 feet is a pretty number. Maybe
>> when I get the Trajectory Optimizer working we can do an optimal mass
>> problem with it and see just how big it would have to be. Maybe with dart?
>> Anyway I wasn't suggesting we go for it just wanted to know what people
>> thought about it so I don't sound stupid tomorrow on the air.
>
> Now you're giving me a crazy idea.  Once we have working control, how
> closely could we put the apogee to 100k feet, plus or minus?  Or any
> arbitrary number roughly in the proper range for the engine size?
>
> - Josh Triplett
>
> _______________________________________________
> psas-team mailing list
> psas-team@lists.psas.pdx.edu
> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-team
>
> This list's membership is automatically generated from the memberships of the 
> psas-airframe, psas-avionics, and psas-general mail lists. Visit 
> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu to individually subscribe/unsubscribe yourself from 
> these lists.
>

_______________________________________________
psas-team mailing list
psas-team@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-team

This list's membership is automatically generated from the memberships of the 
psas-airframe, psas-avionics, and psas-general mail lists. Visit 
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu to individually subscribe/unsubscribe yourself from 
these lists.

Reply via email to