Henry,
From my experience, the last part of what you say will be significant. Had
a friend that taught at the academy for a few years while a member if the
Air Force. Think dealing with institutional inertia will be a major
learning curve for this student. Has been for me at multiple organizations.
Doug Knight
On Sun, May 26, 2019, 2:53 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Good points. My suggested approach did sort of assume you'd be starting
from nothing. That may well be the case - serious student rocketry
programs can come and go - but find out what if anything is already going
on - don't necessarily wait till you arrive there next fall either - and
depending on what's there, consider starting out as part of an existing
project.
Another point to explore: What's the existing safety culture? Are they
already comfortable with things like LOX handling and biprop test stands?
If so, within what limits? If not, you might well spend some part of your
first year working with the Academy engineering safety people to find out
and arrange to provide whatever procedural and documentation and
certification and other-people's-projects-that-didn't-kill-anyone
assurances they'd need to support such. That process too would be
significantly educational...
Henry
On 5/26/2019 11:28 AM, D K wrote:
First of all, see what they have done in the past. Successfully and
unsuccessfully. Then see what the current projects are. Join a team as a
grunt worker the first year. Learn the ropes at the Academy. Then evaluate
what is possible to do and what you want to do. Find the intersection and
work in that direction.
Don't go it alone and assume kudos and kumbiyas for your ideas as a
freshman or sophomore. Demonstrate your abilities via hard work and
dedication to this new group. Get a skin or two on the wall. Then start
proposing. And progressing.
Doug Knight
On Sat, May 25, 2019, 5:51 PM Shepherd Kruse <shepherd.h.kruse@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I’m a student headed to the Air Force academy this Fall. I like the
thought process of going directly to liquids and spending all the time and
resources perfecting an engine. I’m hoping to get backed by the Astro
department and getting the rocketry program up and running again. I’ve done
a lot of work on my own, but as far as success goes, what would you advise
for me to focus on potentially leading a USAFA rocketry team?
Regards,
Shepherd Kruse
On May 25, 2019, 1:04 PM -0600, D K <dougchar001@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
Having done student projects involving rocketry for the last 15 years or
so, while none this big, this is a major accomplishment. Students come and
go administrations come and go, risk tolerance of management varies, and
interest at the institution can vary as well. To work this long this hard
and build upon the knowledge to make it work is a major accomplishment in
my opinion.
The caveat on student rocketry programs is one bad mistake, test, flight
can often ruin the whole program. Forgiveness for my perspective is rare.
Ending a multi-year program that affects multiple students is not worth
certain risks, IMO. Why liquids are a completely different ballgame at
University settings.
And the reality is in a university setting we're training students to go
out and work in different industries, oftentimes not involving rocketry,
especially in small programs such as mine. Ultimately the student is more
important than the rocket not the other way around. The student is our real
deliverable. Why I'm only now starting to consider hybrids but at a very
small scale initially. And like the previous poster said you can do a whole
lot involving rocketry systems with solids as the propellant.
Doug Knight
On Sat, May 25, 2019, 1:58 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2019, Bruno Berger SPL wrote:
Starting with a solid motor (eg a commercial one) is IMHO not wrong. So
you get your experience with the airframe, avionics, telemetry, recovery
etc before you maybe switch to liquids. The chance is great that you
will never fly something if you start with the development of a liquid
engine first...
The flip side of this, though, is projects that decide to fly first with
solids and then switch to liquids, but die when they try to make that
transition.
Whether starting with solids makes sense depends on your goals. For sure,
getting something liquid working is a big hurdle. But if you *must* jump
that hurdle to achieve your goals, flying with solids first might not be
the best use of effort. For example, if your goal is a system that does
DC-X-style powered landings, then learning how to do reliable parachute
recovery (which is harder than it looks, especially given that almost
every failure means building a new rocket) might be a costly distraction.
Part of the problem is that there's a hidden mistake here, lurking in
Bruno's own wording. Quite likely it *is* a mistake to start with
development of a liquid *engine*, if your goal requires development of a
liquid *propulsion system*. With solids, the engine pretty much is the
whole propulsion system. With liquids, not so -- not even close. People
seldom do post-mortems on failed projects, but I think a lot of them would
show that the project died between "engine drawings complete" and "first
successful firing", because getting the *rest* of the propulsion system
working was planned to take a weekend, and after two 14-hour days they
realized they were only getting started.
People who want a liquid propulsion system should not start, as so many of
them do, by trying to design their ideal liquid engine. Better to start
with the simplest and crudest engine possible, with no intention that it
will ever fly, to get experience with plumbing, fluid handling, controls,
ignition, plumbing, data acquisition, test operations, plumbing, etc. :-),
before you maybe switch to a more sophisticated engine design. Not least,
because that experience is going to change your ideas about what the more
sophisticated engine should look like.
for student projects it's important that you see results soon to keep
them motivated.
Agreed, and in fact I would omit "for student projects" -- seeing results
soon is important for any volunteer effort, and it sure doesn't hurt for
investor relations either.
For low-budget projects with an inexperienced team and nervous sponsors,
the dinospace dogma of all-up testing -- build and fly the complete final
system the first time, and of course it will work -- is a snare and a
delusion(*). Think incremental development and testing instead.
(* In fact, if you look at how the all-up concept developed -- most
notably, its use for Project Apollo -- the people involved didn't believe
for an instant that the first test was certain to succeed. They tried for
it, they hoped for it, and they were prepared to exploit it if it
happened, but they were far from sure of it. The "and of course it will
work" part got added later, by the ignorant and overconfident. )
Henry
