Active Flight Control

[Peartree]

Thank you Peartree. Who can do that? I recall seeing a checkbox for that somewhere.
BTW: I sent a message about the incorrect way (unintentionally) I deleted posts 123 and 127. Can you assist?

It takes a forum moderator or administrator. It doesn't happen often simply because the forums would get clogged up with too many notes "pinned" to the top. But if particular situations warrant, forum members can petition/ask that things be made "sticky." For example, there is an ongoing Christmas/Christmas in July gift exchange. Finding the rules, or even being aware of it, would be difficult if it scrolled down the list. To prevent that, long ago, the organizers would "bump" it every day (or more) to keep it "on top" but since so many people were participating, and everyone was having fun, someone eventually asked, or a mod volunteered, and it was "stickied." Of course, twice a year it is unstuck and a new one stickied in its place. TFake a look, forum rules, and a few other things are all stuck, or pinned, to the top. When, and if, the document you describe is in its final form, and if it is agreeable to forum members and BOD's of TRA and/or NAR then it might be time to have that discussion. Then again, depending on how it is done, those national organizations may choose to incorporate it into their working definitions, or something, instead. At this point, I'm not sure where the right place would be. I haven't really followed this discussion in detail. I happened upon it and saw your question about stickies, so I chimed in to answer that specific question about the forum.

 

[jqavins]

Always remember that anyhing posted on the internet is, in a practical if not a legal sense, in the public domain. You always have my permission to quote, repost, or use anything I post here. If I did not want it used that way, I wouldn't post it. (Attribution would be nice.)

 

[Steve Shannon]

Always remember that anyhing posted on the internet is, in a practical if not a legal sense, in the public domain. You always have my permission to quote, repost, or use anything I post here. If I did not want it used that way, I wouldn't post it. (Attribution would be nice.)

Well put. And context. Quoting any of us out of context could really mangle what we actually said.

 

[Richard Dierking]

Yes, I agree with the public domain consideration. I still think people should obtain permission to quote anyone outside of the existing thread, and being specific about what they would like to use. Remember Steve, because of your position and lots of practice, you really think through what you are going to say. At least it seems you do. Some of us just sit down and chat. So, mistakes happen and we also change our minds on some things.

You all know that not everyone is going to be a fan of starting a new post on this subject. There's going to be a knee jerk or two, then someone will say they thought guidance was illegal, etc. I think the approach and reaction to what people say is really important. Some people shy away from TRF because of fear of the response frankly.

So, I suggest starting with Steve's list and elaborating on that a bit and keeping it simple. Almost start fresh but with experience. I've seen people be cool about referencing existing safety practices. I hope that continues. Anyway, I think boatgeek and others would do a great job. If it works maybe you can request the sticky thing.

For me, I'm looking forward to posting info on my projects and having people just tell me that it's the wrong way, or it will not work.

But, this thread seems to still be alive. Anyone mind if I talk about propulsive landing and some other concepts? It's active flight control stuff.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Yes, I agree with the public domain consideration. I still think people should obtain permission to quote anyone outside of the existing thread, and being specific about what they would like to use. Remember Steve, because of your position and lots of practice, you really think through what you are going to say. At least it seems you do. Some of us just sit down and chat. So, mistakes happen and we also change our minds on some things.

You all know that not everyone is going to be a fan of starting a new post on this subject. There's going to be a knee jerk or two, then someone will say they thought guidance was illegal, etc. I think the approach and reaction to what people say is really important. Some people shy away from TRF because of fear of the response frankly.

So, I suggest starting with Steve's list and elaborating on that a bit and keeping it simple. Almost start fresh but with experience. I've seen people be cool about referencing existing safety practices. I hope that continues. Anyway, I think boatgeek and others would do a great job. If it works maybe you can request the sticky thing.

For me, I'm looking forward to posting info on my projects and having people just tell me that it's the wrong way, or it will not work.

But, this thread seems to still be alive. Anyone mind if I talk about propulsive landing and some other concepts? It's active flight control stuff.

I don’t mind a conversation about landing under thrust, but that would be a good thread starter. Reference this thread to show why active flight control isn’t a forbidden topic and then dive into propulsive landing, or more likely simulated landing, where you come to a stop in the air to avoid torching the ground.

 

[Richard Dierking]

I don’t mind a conversation about landing under thrust, but that would be a good thread starter.

That is reasonable. I'll be patient. I'm actually waiting for maybe that new thread on the subject on active flight control (or whatever you all wish to name it) before posting info on a couple projects and ideas. I would be reluctant to reference this thread on my future posts because as previously mentioned, it does ramble a bit. And, I apologize for my part in that.

 

[jqavins]

As for landing under thrust:

 

[Richard Dierking]

LOL

 

[Steve Shannon]

That is reasonable. I'll be patient. I'm actually waiting for maybe that new thread on the subject on active flight control (or whatever you all wish to name it) before posting info on a couple projects and ideas. I would be reluctant to reference this thread on my future posts because as previously mentioned, it does ramble a bit. And, I apologize for my part in that.

You can reference individual posts.
I have no intention of starting a new thread.

 

[Richard Dierking]

You can reference individual posts.
I have no intention of starting a new thread.

Yeah, I kind of figured that. You probably gathered that I also have no desire to start something like this again. However, if someone does, it could be helpful, particularly for you and others on the Board. It could be the equivalent of a FAQ page for this subject.

So, in the future, maybe the near future, someone is going to post a question about active flight control, guidance, what ever the title of the post is. We could ignore them or answer. If answered, I suggest no one say, "oh, not this again."

I think the improved/shortened/to the point post, maybe call it Guidance Lite, would be best for a reference. Anybody? Anybody? What was that movie?
Anyway, I had already considered referring someone to Active Flight Control, Post 141 from Steve "the man". But, consider if they say, well this is an interesting thread, and what's this from Vern? And, OMG, although that's settled, we have yet another opportunity to discuss it again!
Diet or chunky style post to refer people to, time to move on.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Yeah, I kind of figured that. You probably gathered that I also have no desire to start something like this again. However, if someone does, it could be helpful, particularly for you and others on the Board. It could be the equivalent of a FAQ page for this subject.

So, in the future, maybe the near future, someone is going to post a question about active flight control, guidance, what ever the title of the post is. We could ignore them or answer. If answered, I suggest no one say, "oh, not this again."

I think the improved/shortened/to the point post, maybe call it Guidance Lite, would be best for a reference. Anybody? Anybody? What was that movie?
Anyway, I had already considered referring someone to Active Flight Control, Post 141 from Steve "the man". But, consider if they say, well this is an interesting thread, and what's this from Vern? And, OMG, although that's settled, we have yet another opportunity to discuss it again!
Diet or chunky style post to refer people to, time to move on.

I would consider compiling various things from here while putting together an FAQ, but it would be on Tripoli’s website.

 

[Titan II]

You can reference individual posts.
I have no intention of starting a new thread.

Thank you Steve. I am one of those that would like this thread, and the topic, to die. Radio control flying, my primary hobby, has been severely restricted by new regulations. As active stabilization is my main interest in rocketry, I do not want to see that decimated. It is a fact that a lobbyist for the drone industry used information from a forum such as this to facilitate the passing of restrictive regulation. It is only my opinion, but I believe it is best to say nothing, like most individuals working on projects in this domain.

 

[Richard Dierking]

As active stabilization is my main interest in rocketry, I do not want to see that decimated. It is a fact that a lobbyist for the drone industry used information from a forum such as this to facilitate the passing of restrictive regulation. It is only my opinion, but I believe it is best to say nothing, like most individuals working on projects in this domain.

Something to seriously consider in any follow up to this thread.
Titan II, I see your point and trying to understand the other side of this. You have experience many of us don't have.
I appreciate your time following this thread and your insight.
Maybe we'll get the chance to discuss other things on TRF.