- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,953
I hope the nose won't be smashed. Speaking of smashed, you should have some smashed scintillating jewelled scuttling crabs around the base of the rocket.
Yes, thank you Jim! Sometimes I get into the focus and start to overengineer. This is so much simpler, and probably just as strong.
Your comment about three-fin stability also caught my attention. I had several flights a few years back that came apart near the end of the sustainer motor burn. I was never able to identify the cause in some cases. I think I'll go back and review the stability information for those flights, now that the models are better, and see how they look. I have another 3-fin flight coming up that is close to Mach 3. I think a little more research would be prudent.
Jim
... one thing I noticed was that the "switch-band" on the coupler was several inches long? I know that I typically try to reduce the length of this to the minimum because that is one factor that determines how much of the sustainer motor that can be buried into the top of the booster tube. Might be some room to negotiate there?....
Jim
..cont
In this pic you can see how the interstage will be drilled. The three lower sets of holes will be drilled for static ports. The position of the upper three will be traced onto the 'switch band' and holes will be drilled for sheer pin placement (again, thank you Jim for that idea)
View attachment 323498
.... which then led to me having a sleepless night last night when, just as I was falling asleep, I realized that this only works for snap-ring hardware..... and we have an AT 1297 to burn in the upper stage.
Needs to think of that now.
Everything has been signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to TAP inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft Pete (he didnt like it) for three months, and recycled as starters for research motors.
As of February 6, 2013, the C3RC has also been tasked by the TRA BOD to review all non-Class 3 flights
attempting altitudes over 50,000' AGL.
The increased interaction between the FAA and sister government agencies requires that all rockets,
regardless of impulse, designed to fly above 50,000 feet (AGL) be submitted to the Class 3 Review
Committee for dispersion analysis. This is an internal Tripoli decision and not a request by any Federal
agency
Everything has been signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to TAP inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft Pete (he didnt like it) for three months, and recycled as starters for research motors.
So this one yet again comes around to bite my backside. Certain forms needed submitting 90 days prior to flight.
Not going to stop the build or shakedown flights..... coz i had prepared and have the 75mm in 4" airframe booster on hand.
Not a complaint, but I did read that anything no matter what impulse, that is designed to go over 50,000K needs this submitted to TRA for Class 3 approval. Doesnt bother the FAA, but I beleive this is just Tripoli internal.
Yes, that's correct. Anything over 50K needs to be reviewed. However, my experience is that the committee will deal with the Class 3 flights first and then the 50K+ flights after the Class 3 flights are completed. It turns out that the timing for reviewing the 50K+ flights is often not very far before the launch. I would go so far as to say that on one of my flights, the review occurred while I was traveling to the launch. So, although the paperwork is requested 90 days in advance, it's likely that nothing has been done with such projects at present. I would not let this hold you back from submitting if that's what you want to do.
Jim
Go ahead, submit and ask for forgiveness, cos they can always say "nope", and go prepared with the smaller booster.
Enter your email address to join: