What is the proper terminology?

dhkaiser said:

Is using a JL Chute Release on a single separation rocket a duel deploy? Or would one call it a delayed deploy? Or something else? If duel deploy would it be accepted for a L3 cert? Not intending to do that as I am L1 just curious.

Click to expand...

Steve Shannon said:

If you're doing something at apogee to break the rocket apart so it's not screaming down, even if it doesn't have a drogue chute or streamer, that's your first "deployment". When the chute release releases your main at a lower altitude that's a second deployment. In my opinion I would consider it dual deployment.

Dual deployment is not required for L3 certification. Redundancy is required.

I don't know why the chute release could not be used for L3. Redundancy could be done by connecting them to each other. You'd need another set of electronics for the apogee event.

Steve Shannon

Click to expand...

K'Tesh said:

For a L3, wouldn't the "another set of electronics" need a redundancy as well? Either a motor ejection or 2nd flight computer to make sure that everything separates properly?

Click to expand...

dhbarr said:

Two altis to pop the top, two JLCR's to unfurl the reefing.

I would think any L3 review would pass that.

Click to expand...

mikec said:

It's "dual", not "duel".

You can't use a Chute Release for L3 because it uses motor eject for apogee and the requirements are for electronic deployment at apogee (even if there were any L3 motor that had motor eject, which AFAIK there isn't.)

You can call the Chute Release "dual deploy" if you want to, there are no official standards for terminology. At this point I'd just call it "using a Chute Release" as there is no term I'm aware of for tethering of the main, either pyro or non-pyro-based, though such products have been around for years.

The phrase "dual deployment" is a trademark of Adept Rocketry, at least according to them. IANAL but the term seems to have become as generic as "kleenex".

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

I'm hoping in the future we can do away with explosive charges entirely.

Click to expand...

timbucktoo said:

I hope we never do!

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

Aren't you tired of black gunk all over everything, and burned chutes?
Baffles and blankets and dog barf? (oh my)

Also: safety, ATF.

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

I'm hoping in the future we can do away with explosive charges entirely.

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

I'm hoping in the future we can do away with explosive charges entirely.

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

I think modularity is a good thing. You know how you can move Chute Release from rocket to rocket, instead of "building it in" to each rocket? And you can loan it to someone, or add it to a rocket you've already been flying for a year? As opposed to building a sled, screwing down an altimeter, running wires through bulkheads, and "installing" all that stuff in a way that takes some time and effort to share among rockets. Modularity is when you can take a part from one rocket and easily move it to another. Or replace a broken part. Or upgrade a part.

I think everything about a rocket should be as modular as possible, including fins and recovery equipment.

I think you should be able to build a booster section, with replaceable fins and swap-able engine adapters.

And I think there should be something called a recovery section that should be movable from rocket to rocket. And that recovery section would include all the electronics that it requires to operate. So, for instance, you could have a 2.56" diameter recovery section that you could just move from rocket to rocket. If you had a 38mm booster section, you could use an a 38mm-2.56" transition section, and the rocket would look like an Honest John / Estes Ventris. So you'd take a booster section, add a recovery section, add a nosecone (snap on, screw on, fasten shock cords). You'd need to weigh and balance your final configuration, but a simple app could check your stability.

And I think if you break something (or want to upgrade something), you should be able to just add that to existing rockets.

If you wanted to add two recovery sections to a rocket for some reason, that would be easy. Or three.

The recovery section could include camera bay for key chain cameras. And while it's at it, the recovery section (which has to have a built in altimeter to work) could also collect data and wirelessly connect to your smart phone. A *really* good recovery section would also include built-in wireless tracking so that you could locate it.

And though it all sounds super fancy, I think it would be much more reliable and safe than how we do it today. We have the technology!

Click to expand...

John Beans said:

I think modularity is a good thing. You know how you can move Chute Release from rocket to rocket, instead of "building it in" to each rocket? And you can loan it to someone, or add it to a rocket you've already been flying for a year? As opposed to building a sled, screwing down an altimeter, running wires through bulkheads, and "installing" all that stuff in a way that takes some time and effort to share among rockets. Modularity is when you can take a part from one rocket and easily move it to another. Or replace a broken part. Or upgrade a part.

I think everything about a rocket should be as modular as possible, including fins and recovery equipment.

I think you should be able to build a booster section, with replaceable fins and swap-able engine adapters.

And I think there should be something called a recovery section that should be movable from rocket to rocket. And that recovery section would include all the electronics that it requires to operate. So, for instance, you could have a 2.56" diameter recovery section that you could just move from rocket to rocket. If you had a 38mm booster section, you could use an a 38mm-2.56" transition section, and the rocket would look like an Honest John / Estes Ventris. So you'd take a booster section, add a recovery section, add a nosecone (snap on, screw on, fasten shock cords). You'd need to weigh and balance your final configuration, but a simple app could check your stability.

And I think if you break something (or want to upgrade something), you should be able to just add that to existing rockets.

If you wanted to add two recovery sections to a rocket for some reason, that would be easy. Or three.

The recovery section could include camera bay for key chain cameras. And while it's at it, the recovery section (which has to have a built in altimeter to work) could also collect data and wirelessly connect to your smart phone. A *really* good recovery section would also include built-in wireless tracking so that you could locate it.

And though it all sounds super fancy, I think it would be much more reliable and safe than how we do it today. We have the technology!

Click to expand...