Sorry, gp, but that would have been better. Those of us standing under falling rocket segments (in other words, everyone else at a launch) would much prefer the whole rocket be destroyed than to have a 5 or 10 pound chunk of fiberglass, motor casing, etc, plummet out of the sky on us. *Maybe* I could dodge it, but I could not count on grabbing up my 1 year old and my 2 year old sons, and making sure my very blonde 7 year old daughter and my wife and 8 year old son all jump out of the way.
Originally Posted by crossfire
So, if a recovery system is going to fail, we should hope the rocket will go to pieces in the air or, at the least, when it impacts the ground. I am not suggesting that terryg's airframe wasn't appropriately fragile; likewise, I know the bent bolt was the last thing he wanted, and I am not casting stones--I had the same thing happen to me in a midpower using a snapswivel once. I just have a problem with the suggestion that it would be better to have a separation than to destroy the rocket.
Indestructable rockets are a bad thing, not a good one.
Last edited by MountainRocketeer; 15th May 2012 at 11:48 PM.
"Yeah, listen, listen, Sally Sparrow—gotta dash! Things happening. Well, four things—well, four things and a lizard."