One side note: $0.02 >> AFAIK a streamer will stabilize the vehicle, but the descent will be >> too rapid for undamaged recovery. > > For propulsion-only tests I wouldn't be too concerned about undamaged > recovery - even with a theoretically perfect launch and recovery, the > thing's still gonna be completely rebuilt between flights. The idea > is, you make it simple enough that you can do 5 test flights per year > instead of just one - and even if 4 of them are spectacular failures, > you're beating the odds. For full-on launches with avionics and > payload, consider using an 'undamaged recovery' system for just the > expensive stuff, and jettison the much heavier, replaceable > propulsion unit (with streamer recovery to avoid pain). > > It should be fairly easy to come up with a simple logic circuit > connected to an accelerometer that figures out when to pop the > nosecone... design something that costs ten bucks to build, and then > use two of them. Don't forget to use the absolute value of the > accelerometer's output, just in case someone mounts it backwards > (genesis). > > Richard
Having spent the last year making the *numerous* parts needed to build our "simple" rocket, I'm pretty concerned about undamaged recovery (although, if I don't see a launch in the next 6 months, I could be persuaded to to launch WITHOUT a recovery system, just for kicks) :) Summary: If we launch with the idea that damage is OK, then we need an airframe that doesn't require a year to build! -D _______________________________________________ psas-propulsion mailing list psas-propulsion@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-propulsion
