Saad:
The national ranges have required FTS on rail-guided sounding rockets in
the past, notably liquids (Aerobee) as you suggest, but also for solids.
Twenty years ago White Sands offered two Range approved FTS’s at $5k and
$50k each (the more expensive was much smaller and hardened for very high
acceleration); they offered to return the money if the unit was returned in
working order....
Bill
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:56 PM Saad Mirza <smirza@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, but it was solid fueled with much higher acceleration off the rail.
I'm not sure I agree that an FTS will be required, if the liquid-fueled
vehicle is relatively high acceleration and unguided. With a guidance
system, an FTS is typically required.
I am not aware that unguided vehicles often require an FTS.
Best,
Saad Mirza
President
Princeton Rocketry Club
On Sep 19, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Paul Mueller <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Did the FAA and/or Spaceport America require an FTS for the Princeton
100-km attempt on May 27?
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 8:54 PM Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Radar has and always will be a good source. There are ways to make that
cheaper now than ever. All we really need is a proper way to license one
for one shot at a time (launch) use. That may come in the near future I
hope. It's a very practical solution and should be on the agenda for new
space use.
Once we can form a coalition of people (if we ever do) to push our
agenda. The push of one company or another doesn't propel an agenda with
much force. That's part of the problem there just are not enough
companies yet to push much of an agenda. One that would allow innovation
on a bit grander scale for small space companies.
Monroe
-------- Original Message --------sources is
Subject: [AR] Re: FTS (was Re: $1M prize for a student rocket reaching
100 km)
From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, September 16, 2018 12:37 pm
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Ben Brockert wrote:
"For most applications, a minimum of two independent tracking
orrequired to assure public safety." ...
Don't get me started on ranges and sites that think they are ranges.
"What traditional ranges think should be done" and "what makes sense
for amateur and commercial space" are two different things.
True, but there is overlap. For decisions critical to safety (your own
that of the uninvolved public), having two separate data sources reallyis
a good idea, even if it's a practical headache. Deliberately reducing
that to one requires an awful lot of faith in that one data source.
Henry