A corespondent reminds me that altitude plays here: rockets that are going
to 1000km are a different story wrt FTS unless one is over water or tundra.
The general rule—FAA or national range—is that it must be unlikely you will
hit anyone or anyone’s stuff. (1 in 100,000-ish for FAA; opinion at the
ranges).
We might note that the last GoFast flight went in a completely different
azimuth than planned (“rickety launcher” according to someone who was
there): that experience drove FAA to impose additional constraints on such
launches.
Which leads to a question: Saad: did you use a flight path angle lock-out
wrt ignition of the second stage?
Bill
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:07 PM Paul Mueller <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply. I think the GoFast rocket out of Black Rock
and the UP Aerospace rockets out of Spaceport America also didn't/don't
have FTS systems (aRocket, please correct me if I'm wrong).
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
own 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
that of the uninvolved public), having two separate data sourcesreally is
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