Re: Spaceship One - a partial sucess.
From: Bruce Hoult (bruce_at_hoult.org)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: AA Institute: "Dynamics of an Earth Ring"
- Previous message: Malev: "Spaceship One - It wasn't wind sheer"
- Maybe in reply to: Stephen Souter: "Re: Spaceship One - a partial sucess."
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Spaceship One - a partial sucess."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:17:22 +1200
In article <u4K6d.65$2B6.54148@news.uswest.net>,
"Christopher M. Jones" <marmiteNOTSPAM@dualboot.net> wrote:
> > And always will, with that design. Once it gets out of the atmosphere
> > it simply doesn't have enough authority on the attitide control jets to
> > compensate for the variations in thrust vector you're always going to
> > get from a rocket with solid fuel.
> >
> > The higher a flight is aiming for, the worse the problem will be.
>
> This is bunk. The problem on the first flight was straight
> up Pilot Induced Oscillation. The cause for the second
> problem is unknown but considering it was a roll problem
> it's very, very unlikely to be due to thrust variations
> (which would induce pitch or yaw variations).
Then you didn't watch the June flight very carefully.
There was a roll each way just after engine ignition. This is
presumably what you are talking about.
But then there was another uncommanded roll in the last seconds before
engine cutout, much as with this flight, but less.
-- Bruce
- Next message: AA Institute: "Dynamics of an Earth Ring"
- Previous message: Malev: "Spaceship One - It wasn't wind sheer"
- Maybe in reply to: Stephen Souter: "Re: Spaceship One - a partial sucess."
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Spaceship One - a partial sucess."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
