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