Unless the rules have changed for student launch, I tried to get a payload
project approved where the rocket would fly through helium that ejected
from the tip of the nosecone during flight. This was about 12 years ago and
the payload was mixed. Genesis of idea was from a Air Force Academy (I
think) professor paper that basically said it could work to reduce drag at
air mach speeds but hardware and other stuff to make it happen we're not
worth the incremental advantage. Did get SLI to approve flying through the
hot exhaust of a long burn forward facing motor. But SLI then changed the
rules and don't allow those either the last time I checked. Did not even
consider hydrogen as a fluid due to safety issues. Rockets are very cool
and all, I personally love them, but getting someone else's kid hurt (the
amount of risk) supercedes my desires every time.
Doug Knight
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019, 7:01 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Christopher,
Sorry, you don't like my writing style, it can vary wildly from time to
time. Sometimes I think I just try to hard to make Rocket Science fun and
entertaining as opposed to dull and dry Engineering. Apollo oh Gees for
getting your blood flowing enough to make your third and apparently fourth
posts to this group of Rocket Enthusiasts.
Removing the Sound Barrier is just a quirk of nature. The Speed of Sound,
and therefore the Sound Barrier is different for different gases, with
Hydrogen being the "most" different from all other gases. By different, I
mean the fastest speed of sound for all gases known to man (I could be
wrong), making it one of the Best Propellants. Hopefully, I have armed any
young people who are entering college with enough knowledge to convince the
Dean of Engineering that Liquid Hydrogen and Rockets go together, if only
to eliminate the Sound Barrier during their next Student Launch Competition
and take first place.
Forcing others to do things, not my style. I think you have misunderstood,
anybody entering college is an adult and is responsible for their own
safety and the safety of those around them, when they're working with
Liquid Hydrogen and Rockets. Any Safety Requirements wrt Liquid Hydrogen
imposed by the Dean or University should only be considered the bare
minimum, everyone should strive to have personal safety standards that are
higher than the bare minimum.
Welcome to the group.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 10:40 AM Christopher Burnside <
christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just like when he told college folks to go ahead and use liquid hydrogen.
take the post he put out about eliminating the sound barrier using what is
essentially pseudo-scientific engineering language)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:48 AM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You could just ask, oh, I guess you just did?
I'm the guy who just told everyone in this group of Rocket Enthusiast
how to eliminate 93% of a Rocket's Ascent Drag and Wind loads, while at the
same time removing the Sound Barrier, using a mono-propellant Hydrogen
Rocket Engine, similar to Robert Goddard's First Engine. No need to call
out "Max Q" anymore.
I'm the guy who wrote the Guidance Algorithm called Boost Iterative
Guidance (BIG), someone posted to this group of Rocket Enthusiast that they
put my algorithm onboard Orion. Now I feel partially responsible for this
disaster waiting to happen, thanks. :-(
I'm the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) guy who just gave
NASA's Orion Capsule a Failed to meet minimum standards to be "Human
Rated", due to subsonic aerodynamic instability. It's a Capsule, it's not
hard to design a stable capsule. Heck, the thing had great stability right
up to the point that beautiful aerodynamic Tail broke off under the loads
of the landing rocket. Next time, NASA forgets to put Parachutes onboard,
have the Simulated Astronaut throw the pyro separation breaker to prevent
the beautifully aerodynamic Tail from falling off and use the last solid
rocket burn to soften the landing impact. Maybe, NASA accidentally sized
the motor correctly for a landing burn. I'm about as Independent as it gets.
I'm the Guidance Support guy in the backroom during the Challenger
Disaster who still feels the pain of that day every Jan 28th.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:40 PM <christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone know what this guys qualifications are?
On Jul 6, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://youtu.be/zrq71ocWMcg?t=7
"1 A crew module sized and weighted to represent Orion will ..."
So, the Boilerplate is an accurate representation size, shape, weight
and center of gravity and therefore should fly the same as the real thing.
Orion, unstable in SubSonic Flight, will spin so fast that it will
incapacitate the Crew preventing them from taking any actions to save their
own lives.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:30 AM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PS
The smoke trail says it all,
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=247
Mickey Mouse has big balls if he is going to ride in this "unstable"
death trap.
Back in the Day, the Space Shuttle was designed to withstand two
failures. A concept of Fail Operational, Fail Safe. First Failure causes
an abort, ok, good. Second Failure no parachutes, ok, good.
I would have expected to see a nice STABLE Capsule smash into the
ground, giving the Astronaut plenty of time to "Work the Problem", fix the
Parachute or Blow the Hatch and jump out . Instead, I was treated to a
high RPM gyro ride that Disneyland wouldn't touch. The Simulated
Astronauts may have even died before hitting the ground. There was no
"Manual Override" even possible, no Bailing out with a Personal Parachute,
no saying goodbyes.
It's NOT hard to build a Stable Capsule, just look at a Soyuz Capsule.
Stable in hypersonic flight. Stable in supersonic flight. Stable in
transsonic flight. Stable in subsonic flight.
Comparing the changes made to Orion from the original Apollo design,
the "shape" changes would tend to make it more unstable. Orion may even be
more stable upside down, flying heat shield up.
https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/orion-em1-feb18.jpg
Those High Temperature Tile are a great idea for a capsule that is
more stable Up-side-Down.
The Operation was a great success, but the Patient died.
PPSS
Assuming the Boilerplate had the correct shape, weight and cg.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:34 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Still not Human Rated! The Simulated Astronauts Died. Abort Test
Grade: Failed. That is unacceptable behavior for a SubSonic Capsule ...
the
rest of my words are redacted. Redacted, REDACTED. redacted.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=200
"...And it would Appear, that,, the,,, test is complete."
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:34 PM Redacted sender crogers168 for DMARC <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig:
It was a boilerplate crew module, without a parachute recovery
system. Once the crew module separated and was out of the near-field
flow
field behind the launch abort system, the test was over.
The flight data was telemetered to the ground. As a back-up,
ejectable data recorders were used as a second means to get the flight
data
if there was a telemetry system failure. The ejectable data recorders
were
ejected after crew module separation.
After reentry from orbit, or after an abort, drogue parachutes are
deployed. (There are modes where you go direct to the main parachutes.)
As the boilerplate crew module had no parachute system, it had no drogue
parachutes.
The crew module has to be stable after separation from the launch
abort system for a short period of time before deployment of the drogue
parachutes. (Or for the short period of time before you go direct to
the
main parachutes.) The crew module was stable for this short period of
time.
Tumbling later in the flight shows why drogue parachutes are used.
Drogue parachutes are lighter than other options of reconfiguration of
the
outer mold line, Center of Gravity (CG) shift beyond what is built into
the
capsule for a small Lift-over-Drag (L/D) ratio during hypersonic
reentry,
or other options.
As I noted; after the crew module separated from the launch abort
system, the test was over.
Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jul 5, 2019 7:56 am
Subject: [AR] Orion Abort Test Failure...
...Not Human Rated. Orion Abort Test was a complete and utter
failure, yet NASA calls it a success?
I can make some assumptions about what they did, like. The shape of
the Orion Capsule is correct. The Center of Gravity (CG) is correct.
Given
these two assumptions, this Orion Capsule test was a complete and utter
failure. Back to the drawing board and re-design the entire Capsule,
it's
not Human Rated.
NASA showed this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rfsDMGplZU
Yet, here is what the Orion Capsule flying through the atmosphere.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=170
I would hardly call this "Stable" flight. Exactly how many RPM do
NASA Astronauts like to be spinning at, when they impact the water?
Gees,
can you imagine what it would be like to "Work the Problem" tumbling at
that rate?
The Orion Capsule is unstable.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
