Mach 30 #EngineerSpeak Hangout Oct 9, 2014
Discussion Topic: Review feedback on Launch Vehicle Subsystems Discussions for Roadmap
Attending: J, Jeremy, Aaron, Juli, Matt, Greg, Scott
Start: 22:05
End: 2315
Minutes:
- J - Since the last kickoff meeting there has been some Asynchronous Roadmap work. Lets review the progress even though it was not as much as I’d hoped to happen (even for myself).
- Going through each subsystem:
- Propulsion: Keep on the short list for future Mach 30 projects
- Matt - does that rating include the manufacturing of propulsion systems?
- Aaron - Despite the scale of the device the type of propulsion system may dictate the ITAR relevance.
- Matt - We’re trading one regulation for another because High-power rocketry is still regulated, even though it’s not as tightly controlled as ITAR.
- Guidance Navigation Control (GNC): Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - Too problematic for now from a regulation perspective.
- Command & Data Handling (C&DH): Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- Significant disqualifiers in Engineering Expertise and Admin
- J - it doesn’t look like we’re prepared to tackle these yet, even though these are “right-sized” projects.
- Telemetry Tracking Control (TT&C): Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - This inherits the same basic ratings as C&DH, but there are relevant bits with respect to payloads on High-power rockets.
- G- Arent all of these subsystems required on a High-power rocket?
- J - yes, but we're not doing an in-depth study of any of those other subsystems.
- Aaron - If i had the opportunity to “deliver” some project to Mach 30, would that be putting the cart before the horse.
- J - Mach 30’s roadmap will be signed-off and funded by the Board of Directors. If someone wants to engage and contribute to some designs, yes, that would be appropriate. I will never tell Mach 30 volunteers and contributors to not work on their own personal projects and would go farther to encourage them to document sufficiently to comply with the “prime directive” of OSHW.
- Matt - Would my camera idea then fall into the payload?
- J - Yes, this may also fit into a future payload system for high-power rocketry.
- Greg - Note: this is a hypothetical with a lot of “ifs”
- Electrical/Power: Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - We’re short on Electrical Engineering experience in the core volunteer team. And there are non-space related projects, but not the depth of field.
- Structure/Mechanical: Keep on the short list
- J - Interesting input from Matt M. I hadn’t thought about that aspect of structures.
- Aerodynamics: Leave on the short list for now.
- J - There are 2 parts, the physical tools (test rigs) and the analytical tools (CFD and other software). Our expertise is mostly on the physical side.
- Aaron - How much “aerodynamics” do we actually need?
- Greg - it depends. The answer ranges from “None” to “Extensive”
- Matt - I just intuitively feel weird about cutting this subsystem from an “Aerospace” project.
- Thermal Management: Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - Not our area of expertise
- Aaron - This is a longer term issue because none of the early “kites” will require that level of depth of study yet.
- Thermal Protection: Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- Aaron - same notes as above
- Trajectory (launch & re-entry): Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - Welcome to Export controls
- Attitude Control: Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - this system is related to the GNC but the distinction is space vs air. That’s different from GNC because it’s specifically needed once the craft leaves the atmosphere.
- Aaron - there may be a little bit of “Cold Gas Thruster” work here
- Payload Handling:Discard this as a possible project area, for now
- J - There is too much diversity and breadth of possibility to make “high-level” progress. Any particular project gets too specific and most likely bumps into ITAR by virtue of being “space related”
- J - will post some thoughts on next steps in the process thread and we can try them out; others are of course welcome to post comments about how to proceed as well
- Jeremy - Are the examples still going to be added to each subsystem?
- J - probably, see comments in the process thread as they become available