On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:06:37 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >At the time, we really didn't have any clue to what caused the chute to >pop early. Since we only saw one pyro charge go off (after the chute was >deployed - clearly the timer based one), and we noted that both pyros did >ignite (recovery inspection), we reasoned that the baro sensor set off the >first one, which popped the chute. This seemed to rule out drag separation >as a cause of the early deployment. Exactly how the baro could fail, even >given the severe vibrations, is still unknown. This is the exact system >we used for all three of the KISS2 flights, and it worked perfectly.
I'm still puzzled by this. I didn't hear the baro-actuated pyro go off, but the acceleration data shows it clearly. I guess we just don't hear the deployment pyro unless the parachute has already deployed. >So, long discussions followed, and we agreed to run the same system with >the solid motor, knowing that even if the baro worked fine, we probably >still shouldn't trust it with the second HTP flight. It came down to the >realization that an early chute deployment at the higher speeds of the >second HTP flight (data later showed almost 500 mph) would clearly >shred the chute completely, and we'd lose the entire vehicle. Thus, >we went with timer only deployment, with an additional timer for >backup. Oh, OK. That's more reassuring. So we still had redundancy in the recovery system; good. -R -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire." -Sir Charles Kingsford Smith _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
