The Case Of The Missing Inch (Exactly!)

The Case Of The Missing Inch (Exactly!)

Post by J A Stephen Viggia » Fri, 03 Feb 1995 06:43:06



Well, I just mailed out the January-February issue of the _Upstate_
_Rocketeer_ (volume 8, nr. 1), and decided I'd kick back, relax, and
enjoy it in hard-copy form myself (after staring at it on a video
screen for a couple weeks).

One of r.m.r.'s net.personalities (wait! make that a net.featured.personality),
Mr. Peter Alway, was kind enough to share with us some beautiful drawings
of an Aerobee-300, one of the original NASA rounds. I guess the
uncertainty on some of the measurements caused Peter to pass it by for
_ROTW_. It surely wasn't because it wasn't a georgous drawing of a fine-
looking rocket.

I had written a short article (I found the date and place of launch, some
details on the payload and mission, etc.) and even provided a set of
dimensions, following BMS's protocol, so that it would be convenient for
the reader to build a 1/9 scale Aerobee Hi. As a matter of fact, I was
filling out the BMS order form half an hour ago. I also provided a list
of the body tubes needed, including their lengths.

As I'm looking at the article and the scale data, my eye goes from the
headline of the article, to the first page of drawings, back to the
headline, back to the first page of drawings . . . and that's when I
saw it. The headline proudly proclaims "1/9 Scale Aerobee 300, Flight
6.01 UI", while the legend on the drawings says, "Aerobee 300, Flight
6.02 UI".

All the dimensions I had given were, I think, were appropriate for the
6.02 round, which was ONE INCH longer than 6.01. So about the only thing
hurt (besides my pride) is the headline itself, and the fact that the
flight information I gave was for the previous round.

However, something struck me as kind of odd. Someday, somewhere, someone
may see this article (hah!). They may not notice the "Flight 6.02"
legend on Peter's beautiful drawings, instead paying attention only to
the headline, which indicates "Flight 6.01". And they might wonder why
one source says the payload housing for this flight is 68.88 inches
long, while another says it is 69.88 inches long. Here's a "case of
the missing inch" in which the point of contention is exactly one inch!

(I am convinced that anyone sharp enough to know that there is a
difference will also be sharp enough to believe Peter Alway instead
of me!)

Needless to say, I've already got an erratum planned for the next issue.

Have fun & fly 'em high!

--
Having fun at NARAM-37 should be easier than pronouncing "Geneseo".
========================================================================

NAR 25615                                       I'm the NAR, and I vote!

 
 
 

The Case Of The Missing Inch (Exactly!)

Post by al.. » Sat, 04 Feb 1995 02:53:54


Quote:
John Viggiano writes:
> (I am convinced that anyone sharp enough to know that there is a
> difference will also be sharp enough to believe Peter Alway instead

Or perhaps foolish enough....
Quote:
> Needless to say, I've already got an erratum planned for the next issue.

Welcome to the world of publishing scale data.  Consider yourself
lucky that you have a single erratum.  It is amazing how, as time goes
on I can cut fewer and fewer errata sheets from a single 8 1/2 x 11
page.

Peter "If I don't put my sig as a middle name I'd have to learn
how to make a sig file, and life's too short for that" Alway