Robert,
Joe is building low power rockets for a reason. The design doesn't scale
and Joe will tell you the same. It actually has nothing to do with speed
though. You won't hit Mach 3 if you have a motor less than 1/3 of your
airframe diameter.
Any University using solids in a rocket like you propose would have a wide
set of engineering solutions to choose for control. A BPS style gimbal
would not be one of them. Since you're so inclined to call University
groups and hobbyists green, perhaps you'd regale us with tales of your
launches.
Charlie Garcia
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 8:35 PM Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I was wondering is if the methods used by BPS.Space would still work
when the rocket is traveling at supersonic speeds. They are rather green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-86tsFJ7lE
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u-86tsFJ7lE>
About the gimbled nozzles, university teams trying to produce one would
have the advantage of knowing what was already done and trying to reproduce
what has already worked.
Bob Clark
On Saturday, March 3, 2018, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Robert Clark wrote:
The method likely could be modified to gimbal a movable nozzle only as
is
done with large solids.
Not easily or cheaply. The hot-gas seals used in the nozzle gimbals for
the big solids were a considerable technological achievement, and took
quite a while to develop, which is why a bunch of other vectoring methods
were used in the early days of big solids.
A big question though is whether the method would
work for rockets at supersonic speeds.
Since it's been used for ICBMs and orbital launchers for many years,
there is little doubt of that.
Henry
