Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

Hi Patrons!

Still on track to try landing again soon. Feels like 2 weeks out, but it's felt like that for 1-2 weeks :P With that, comes lots, and lots, and lots, of testing. I do not think it is statistically likely that it will land upright on the first try, but you'd better believe I'm aiming for that, so I'm testing the heck out of every system.

One of those systems is the parachute bay! You might ask, "Hey Joe why do you need parachutes for propulsive landing?" What an excellent question! There are several points during flight where things can go wrong in a dangerous way. Well... Actually, that can happen at almost all points of the flight. The point is that I want this rocket to come down to the ground in a controlled way, by one method or another.

Ideally we have a good clean ascent, but what if we don't? Parachutes!

Ideally we get the ascent motor ejected for the landing, but what if we don't? Parachutes!

Ideally we're within a safe orientation range when we light the landing motor, but what if we're not? Parachutes!

Ideally the rocket motor doesn't CATO/follow an off-nominal burn profile, but what if it does and we're coming in way faster than we should? Parachutes!

Basically, there are many points where a little set of safety chutes will give me some peace of mind, and that's what this testing is about. 

The video is mostly self-explanatory, but here are a few things to note.

- The reason we can't have a regular chute ejection system out the top, is that the rocket's landing fins are in the way. And even if they weren't, this tiny pod sits low on the vehicle, which is a great thing. It keeps our center of mass low, which is good for reorientation at apogee, AND for staying upright on touchdown.

- We've only got one chute in here, I can't quite fit two. One chute will give us a sporty, but safe, landing. That's okay here, as our mass budget is tight and this chute shouldn't be needed in normal circumstances.

- I'm still dialing in the packing technique here. I actually swapped chutes about halfway through testing, the second chute doesn't fold out as easily, and so that needs to be worked on. Early tests would have the chute inflated pretty quickly at most speeds, the later tests pop out a compact ball of chute, which would probably open eventually, but that's not what abort systems are about :)

Anyway, here's a bunch of footage!

In other news, I got throttle control working the other day on AVA. It's happening... I need another week or two to dial that in, but wow. You would be surprised just how close you can get to landing at a pretty wide range of ignition times, if you follow the right divert trajectory. More on that soon!

Blue skies,

Joe

Files

Scout E - Emergency Chute Ejection Testing

Help support BPS.space: https://www.patreon.com/bps_space Second channel, mostly for KSP: https://www.youtube.com/user/musicmakr For more info: https://twitter.com/joebarnard https://twitter.com/bps_space https://www.instagram.com/bps.space/ https://www.facebook.com/bps.space/ http://www.bps.space

Comments

Anonymous

I like the door mechanism! You ever gonna get yourself a chronos slow mo camera?

Anonymous

Hell yeah!

Anonymous

Would you ever consider hinged doors that loosely clasp shut and are easily popped open by the charge?

Anonymous

You might think about tethering the door to the airframe using kevlar string bonded to the inside of the airframe, and door. That way, if the tape hinge separates due to dynamic forces, you won't lose the door.

Anonymous

Looks good! I’m not sure If tape is the most repeatable method, as the bond effectiveness is a function of the surface texture, how hard you pressed it onto the airframe, and how much other stuff (dirt, oils, condensation, etc) is on the airframe, among other things. Nonetheless, if it works, it works! I love the “more is more” ideology behind ejection charge sizing, your emphasis on safety is awesome!

Anonymous

"Sporty landing"