| User | Post |
|
5:37 pm
December 12, 2009
|
brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
Our forum structure still references a CM-SM style design, and I think we ought to change that since it looks like that's not the current plan. Admittedly, this is perhaps not all that high of a priority, but I think it ought to eventually happen.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
9:34 pm
December 12, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Ah yes, I was meant to do that a while ago, wasn't I? I'll do it now.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
9:56 pm
December 12, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Things should look a little better now, I think. The "Service Module design" subforum in the SEW group has been removed (it contained very little worthwhile discussion anyway), and the "Service Module engine and RCS" subrofum in the Propulsion workgroup group has been split into an "Orbital bus" subforum (which I suppose will also have to house discussion of simpler propulsion modules, e.g. retro rocket modules) and a "Command module RCS" subforum (which contains an old post on SM RCS with the title modified to reference CM – the conversation still makes sense after this).
If anybody can see any remaining SM references in our forum structure, please point them out.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
11:23 pm
December 12, 2009
|
brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
Thanks. That's definitely better. I think you got everything.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Topic RSS 
