Valid point, Kurt. See, I knew I was posting grumpy this morning!:wink:
I am all for learning; that's what makes a place like TRF great! Learn from others' victories and losses. My main point is that we have 5 pages of replies of speculation without any concrete evidence of what actually went wrong (except for tracker related issue...good content there
). Apologies as my opinion is driven by a career that is largely based on problem solving. IE: something *bad* happens, we reflect, determine root cause(s), assign corrective actions, and so on. It's really hard to generate meaningful corrective actions without understanding what actually went wrong. I parallel this thread to that concept.
Creating change without understanding the problem tends to make chaos. Not saying this is chaos, but there's a whole lot of armchair quarterbacking going on...and it frustrates me when people say you can or can't do x based upon computer stuff...some things you just gotta get out in the real world and live and learn through trial and error. Sims and formulas are great, but by actually doing is where true learning is derived.
Rant off. Don't let me be a downer; I'm looking forward to learning as well. Just don't go changing everything without understanding what needs changing!
Nate, not sure if I understand this statement exactly. If your design calls for dual deploy where the main is deployed at low altitude (1000' agl for example) and the main is dumped at apogee, *I believe* the cert is void. One doesn't need traditional dual deploy for an L3 attempt (or the other levels for that matter), but *I've always been taught* the flight events have to function as intended in order to be a "successful" attempt.