[roc-chat] Re: roc-chat Digest V2 #117
- From: monsieurboo@xxxxxxx
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Well, statistics tell us to expect a normal distribution -- but only the W
would determine how far east of the Y axis it'd start. On the other hand, find
the first one and you'd likely soon find a few more.
Cheers
Mark L.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:38:11 -0700
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: New 'mass launch' rules
From: Lakestake Rocketry <lakestake@xxxxxxxxx>
And would anyone be able to recover their rocket? Any breeze with a
quarter mile head start and my money is not on the Boy Scout.
Matt
On Apr 21, 2012 11:11 AM, "Jim - TFJ" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you mass launched Mosquitos from 1500 ft away, would anyone see it?
-----Original Message-----
From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: roc-chat digest users <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 1:06 am
Subject: roc-chat Digest V2 #117
roc-chat Digest Wed, 25 Apr 2012 Volume: 02 Issue: 117
In This Issue:
[roc-chat] Re: New 'mass launch' rules
[roc-chat] G10 fin thickness question?
[roc-chat] Re: G10 fin thickness question?
[roc-chat] Re: Fw: It's Krauthammer Friday
[roc-chat] Re: Fw: It's Krauthammer Friday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:38:11 -0700
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: New 'mass launch' rules
From: Lakestake Rocketry <lakestake@xxxxxxxxx>
And would anyone be able to recover their rocket? Any breeze with a
quarter mile head start and my money is not on the Boy Scout.
Matt
On Apr 21, 2012 11:11 AM, "Jim - TFJ" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you mass launched Mosquitos from 1500 ft away, would anyone see it?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of David Erbas-White
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:53 PM
> To: ROC-CHAT
> Subject: [roc-chat] New 'mass launch' rules
>
> Don't know if folks have seen it yet, but as of this summer the new
> guidelines for mass launches (anything more than 10 rockets) simultaneously
> means the stand-off distance is 1.5 times expected maximum altitude (NAR
> rules, but drawn from NFPA, so I would expect TRA to follow suit if they
> haven't done so already).
>
> Guess the 'K' Goblin drag races will be but a memory, now...
>
> David Erbas-White
>
>
> --
> ROC-Chat mailing list
> roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
>
>
>
> --
> ROC-Chat mailing list
> roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: [roc-chat] G10 fin thickness question?
From: John Howard <jhoward@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:48:41 -0700
I’m building a scratch dual deploy 4” G10 3FNC rocket, and was planning on
using
54mm motors. If I used a 75mm MM then I could launch my first L motor up at
XPRS in September (and 54mm’s with an adapter). I will be doing slots through
the airframe with reinforced filets inside and out and I already have 1/8” G10.
Most kits online look like they use 1/8” G10 for 54mm kits, and 3/16” G10 for
75mm/98mm kits.
Am I asking for trouble if I use 1/8” G10 fins with a 75mm motor like a
Ceseroni
L800 or Aerotech L850W? In ROCSIM both look like rocket would be above 1100
ft/sec for about 2.5 seconds ? Or should I just stick with the 54mm??
Any input would be appreciated!!
Thanks,
John
Sent from my old iPhone
------------------------------
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: G10 fin thickness question?
From: Kenneth Brown <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:45:55 -0700
It's more a question of what velocity you are expecting. 1/8" G10 fins on a 4"
Goblin with a K1100 (54mm) isn't going to fare very well. Mine didn't and it
had
the stock birch ply fins.
If you plan to fly slow, use the 1/8". I would go with the 3/16" myself. You
can
always find a use for the 1/8" stock later.
Ken (AKA, AG6LD) Brown
Got my call sign. Amateur Extra on my first try.
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 PM, John Howard wrote:
> I�m building a scratch dual deploy 4� G10 3FNC rocket, and was planning on
using 54mm motors. If I used a 75mm MM then I could launch my first L motor up
at XPRS in September (and 54mm�s with an adapter). I will be doing slots
through
the airframe with reinforced filets inside and out and I already have 1/8� G10.
Most kits online look like they use 1/8� G10 for 54mm kits, and 3/16� G10 for
75mm/98mm kits.
>
> Am I asking for trouble if I use 1/8� G10 fins with a 75mm motor like a
Ceseroni L800 or Aerotech L850W? In ROCSIM both look like rocket would be
above 1100 ft/sec for about 2.5 seconds ? Or should I just stick with the 54mm??
>
> Any input would be appreciated!!
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> Sent from my old iPhone
> --
> ROC-Chat mailing list
> roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
>
------------------------------
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Fw: It's Krauthammer Friday
From: John Van Norman <yrockets@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:08:32 -0700
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It does tan my hide a bit thinking about Chinese astronauts on the Moon with
rakes at the Apollo 11 landing site. However, when you think about it, the
Apollo program was unsustainable and if we get in another 'space race' the same
things would probably happen again. During the Apollo program, the plaque on
the lunar module leg said we came in peace for all mankind, but it really
should
have said we came to beat the Soviet Union, and yeah baby we did! But it was
like looking at a sprinter after they broke the tape at the end of the race.
Hopefully, our motivation going forward will be more about science and less
about competition.
>
> I have faith in the following generation of American scientists and engineers
to do a great job. NASA needs a clear mission, a new PR strategy, and not to
be
at the whim of each presidential administration.
>
> Richard Dierking
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Jim - TFJ <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So the systems needed for a manned orbit is more complex than an autonomous
rendezvous?
>
> I guess he didn't realize that private companies built the Nasa rockets.
>
> Of course the private companies would have to work without internal
bureaucracies.
>
>
> Jim G.
> From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Peaceloverockets
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:07 AM
> To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Fw: It's Krauthammer Friday
>
> Plus, we have SpaceX and a number of other private industries.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Cliff Sojourner <cls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> poignant and timely. but don't give up quite yet, there's something you can
do!
>>
>> the NASA Bake Sale!
>>
>> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116811-NASA-Announces-Bake-Sale-Fundraiser
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-04-22 17:34, Norbert Soski wrote:
>>>
>>> This is how some of us in the Space-industry (25 plus years) view our
current situation (read below); a glorious past with no future. Baby-boomers
grew up with those inspiring words from President JFK, but what took less than
9
years to accomplish in the 1960's is almost impossible to accomplish again
today. A glorious industry with the "right stuff" heroes lost with no lofty
goals nor future. And we wonder why we can not motivate our youth to pursue
the
sciences. We are a country crushing our "laurels" because of the weight
of
our fat asses.
>>>
>>> Norbert Soski
>>> "rocket scientist"
>>>
>>>
>>> Farewell, the New Frontier
>>>
>>> By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 19The Washington Post
>>>
>>> As the space shuttle Discovery flew three times around Washington, a final
salute before landing at Dulles airport for retirement in a museum, thousands
on
the ground gazed upward with marvel and pride. Yet what they were
witnessing, for all its elegance, was a funeral march.
>>> The shuttle was being carried — its pallbearer, a 747 — because it cannot
fly, nor will it ever again. It was being sent for interment. Above ground, to
be sure. But just as surely embalmed as Lenin in Red Square.
>>> Is there a better symbol of willed American decline? The pity is not
Discovery’s retirement — beautiful as it was, the shuttle proved too expensive
and risky to operate — but that it died without a successor. The planned
follow-on — the Constellation rocket-capsule program to take humans back into
orbit and from there to the moon — was suddenly canceled in 2010. And with
that,
control of manned spaceflight was gratuitously ceded to Russia and China.
>>> Russia went for the cash, doubling its price for carrying an astronaut into
orbit to $55.8 million. (Return included. Thank you, Boris.)
>>> China goes for the glory. Having already mastered launch and rendezvous,
>>> the
Chinese plan to land on the moon by 2025. They understand well the value of
symbols. And nothing could better symbolize China overtaking America than its
taking our place on the moon, walking over footprints first laid down, then
casually abandoned, by us.
>>> Who cares, you say? What is national greatness, scientific prestige or
inspiring the young — legacies of NASA — when we are in economic distress?
Okay.
But if we’re talking jobs and growth, science and technology, R&D and
innovation
— what President Obama insists are the keys to “an economy built to last” — why
on earth cancel an incomparably sophisticated, uniquely American technological
enterprise?
>>> We lament the decline of American manufacturing, yet we stop production of
the most complex machine ever made by man — and cancel the successor meant to
return us to orbit. The result? Abolition of thousands of the most highly
advanced aerospace jobs anywhere — its workforce abruptly unemployed and
drifting away from space flight, never to be reconstituted.
>>> Well, you say, we can’t afford all that in a time of massive deficits.
>>> There are always excuses for putting off strenuous national endeavors:
deficits, joblessness, poverty, whatever. But they shall always be with us.
We’ve had exactly five balanced budgets since Alan Shepard rode Freedom 7 in
1961. If we had put off space exploration until these earthbound social and
economic conundrums were solved, our rocketry would be about where North
Korea’s
is today.
>>> Moreover, today’s deficits are not inevitable, nor even structural. They
>>> are
partly the result of the 2008 financial panic and recession. Those are over
now.
The rest is the result of a massive three-year expansion of federal spending.
>>> But there is no reason the federal government has to keep spending 24
percent of GDP. The historical postwar average is just over 20 percent — and
those budgets sustained a robust manned space program.
>>> NASA will tell you that it’s got a new program to go way beyond low-Earth
orbit and, as per Obama’s instructions, land on an asteroid by the mid-2020s.
Considering that Constellation did not last even five years between birth and
cancellation, don’t hold your breath for the asteroid landing.
>>> Nor for the private sector to get us back into orbit, as Obama assumes it
will. True, hauling MREs up and trash back down could be done by private
vehicles. But manned flight is infinitely more complex and risky, requiring
massive redundancy and inevitably larger expenditures. Can private entities
really handle that? And within the next lost decade or two?
>>> Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Gene Cernan are deeply skeptical.
“Commercial transport to orbit,” they wrote in a 2010 open letter, “is likely
to
take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.” They
called
Obama’s cancellation of Constellation a “devastating” decision that “destines
our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature.”
>>> “Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation
provides,” they warned, “the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill
slide to mediocrity.” This, from “the leading space faring nation for nearly
half a century.”
>>> Which is why museum visits to the embalmed Discovery will be sad indeed.
America rarely retreats from a new frontier. Yet today we can’t even do what
John Glenn did in 1962, let alone fly a circa-1980 shuttle.
>>> At least Discovery won’t suffer the fate of the Temeraire, the British
warship tenderly rendered in Turner’s famous painting “The Fighting Temeraire
tugged to her last Berth to be broken up, 1838.” Too beautiful for the
scrapheap, Discovery will lie intact, a magnificent and melancholy rebuke to
constricted horizons.
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/farewell-the-new-frontier/2012/04/19/gIQA49o8TT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Fw: It's Krauthammer Friday
From: John Van Norman <yrockets@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:12:11 -0700
It should do more than tan your hide. The military calls that "SHG". Stratigic
High Ground...
J
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Richard Dierking <richard.dierking@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It does tan my hide a bit thinking about Chinese astronauts on the Moon with
rakes at the Apollo 11 landing site.
------------------------------
End of roc-chat Digest V2 #117
******************************
--
ROC-Chat mailing list
roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
- » [roc-chat] Re: roc-chat Digest V2 #117 - monsieurboo
