This is just speculation, but if the altimeter bay was not properly sealed to the rear parachute bay, it could be that at burnout the parachute in the rear compartment continued moving upward relative to the rear part of the rocket creating a pressure increase trough a piston effect. (similar to drag separation, but with internal components)
I cannot see how the camera mount should create a pressure increase at burnout. If there would be a problem with it, it should depend only on speed not acceleration. Thomas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: altusmetrum [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Keith Packard Gesendet: Monday, May 23, 2016 08:49 An: Chris Attebery; Kurt; Altus Metrum Betreff: Re: [altusmetrum] Flight forensics? Chris Attebery <[email protected]> writes: > I've attached a rendering of the altimeter bay and camera shroud. In > hindsight I should have sealed the camera in a separate bay from the > altimeters. I would probably stretch the rocket a bit more to get some > separation between the electronic and the camera shroud. I need to > look into getting a second accelerometer based altimeter for backup too. Hrm. Thinking about this some more, is it possible that the rocket went sideways? It's really hard to make an ebay airtight enough so that a plugged static port would read a steady, and even increasing pressure while the rocket was still going up. If there was some major structure failure near motor burn out, I would have expected to see more noise in the acceleration data though, so it would have had to be a fairly gentle failure mode. -- -keith _______________________________________________ altusmetrum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gag.com/mailman/listinfo/altusmetrum
