Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!linac!att!oucsboss!oucsace!mspurgeo
From: mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Graph of osc'n due to high windforce
Summary: stability no problem
Message-ID: <3518@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Date: 13 Jun 91 23:53:35 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.084111.8668@cc.curtin.edu.au> <950@lhdsy1.chevron.com>
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept., Athens
Lines: 22

In article <950@lhdsy1.chevron.com>, yzarn@lhdsy1.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) writes:
> Yes, I am interested by the simulator code.
> Also, one thing does not seem obvious to me: I understand why the
> velocity will be *high* but why are you expecting stability problems?
(stuff deleted)
> Also, why the 1.3 g? Should it not be 1? How could it be above 1 since
> the skydiver is not inputting energy? He/she won't have a rocket up
> their butt, will they?
> Just curious.

At a guess, the 1.3 G's is because the atmosphere is acting to
'decelerate' the jumper from his previous high velocity.  Mass
and inertia still apply.

Regarding stability, Col. Kittenger felt he could have done 
without the 6 foot drogue, and that stability was _not_ a
problem.

Keep in mind that a premature deployment would be fatal.

Mike Spurgeon
Internet: mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu